Thomas and his GRIFTS!

Enough DOJ!

Do Your Job!

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/05/us/politics/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-jet.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ak4.CtIO.I0OypTC5Q7cC&smid=fb-share&fbclid=IwY2xjawEd7zZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHWxFaFpeFjOcygg4AVBJ7bAxxDu2UDR-db6uBNVWw5jx330LE7yWq0Bolg_aem_9X_vtmFAtSk1b0vsvT0WZw

That was the name of my High School band!

It's Walz!

The situation regarding Supreme Court justices is difficult at best. Even if the DOJ investigated and found prosecutable crimes, what’s the recourse? Right now a justice can only be removed by impeachment and that’s a nigh-insurmountable hurdle.  Maybe if a Republican was president the Republicans in the Senate would be willing to vote to remove Thomas from office.  But they worked hard to get their supermajority of partisan justices and they won’t budge on any of them.

We seem to be finding out how badly the US government can be abused by people with no regard for the rule of law. 

mrincredible said:

The situation regarding Supreme Court justices is difficult at best. Even if the DOJ investigated and found prosecutable crimes, what’s the recourse? Right now a justice can only be removed by impeachment and that’s a nigh-insurmountable hurdle.  Maybe if a Republican was president the Republicans in the Senate would be willing to vote to remove Thomas from office.  But they worked hard to get their supermajority of partisan justices and they won’t budge on any of them.

We seem to be finding out how badly the US government can be abused by people with no regard for the rule of law. 

you raise an interesting question. There's no prohibition in the Constitution against prosecuting anyone in the federal government. The prohibition against prosecuting the president was just a DOJ advisory.

What is true is that if Thomas were convicted of anything, he could still stay on the court. However that would work.

drummerboy said:

you raise an interesting question. There's no prohibition in the Constitution against prosecuting anyone in the federal government. The prohibition against prosecuting the president was just a DOJ advisory.

What is true is that if Thomas were convicted of anything, he could still stay on the court. However that would work.

That’s true. 

Right now there would be a zig-zagging path to prosecution of Thomas. Of course you’d have to start with collection of evidence and building a case for prosecution. Then comes the question of which jurisdiction to file charges and which judge gets assigned. 

We’re seeing right now that members of the federal judiciary are willing to make questionable decisions to protect political allies. If the wrong judge got assigned they could behave like Aileen Cannon and obstruct and/or dismiss charges. We also see a Supreme Court that shows no reservation about ruling in favor of unchecked power. If his case got that far, would Thomas actually recuse himself? Could he be forced to? It doesn’t seem like there’s a structure to stop him from ruling in his own case, if it came to that. 

The flaw in the checks and balances system regarding the federal judiciary is it only applies at the point of “hire.” My company does a drug screen when it hires someone but they could go in a raging coke bender every weekend ylfor years and there’s no follow-up. I feel like that’s where we are. If Thomas had pulled all this crap before he was appointed he might not have made it through the vetting process. 

mrincredible said:

That’s true. 

Right now there would be a zig-zagging path to prosecution of Thomas. Of course you’d have to start with collection of evidence and building a case for prosecution. Then comes the question of which jurisdiction to file charges and which judge gets assigned. 

We’re seeing right now that members of the federal judiciary are willing to make questionable decisions to protect political allies. If the wrong judge got assigned they could behave like Aileen Cannon and obstruct and/or dismiss charges. We also see a Supreme Court that shows no reservation about ruling in favor of unchecked power. If his case got that far, would Thomas actually recuse himself? Could he be forced to? It doesn’t seem like there’s a structure to stop him from ruling in his own case, if it came to that. 

The flaw in the checks and balances system regarding the federal judiciary is it only applies at the point of “hire.” My company does a drug screen when it hires someone but they could go in a raging coke bender every weekend ylfor years and there’s no follow-up. I feel like that’s where we are. If Thomas had pulled all this crap before he was appointed he might not have made it through the vetting process. 

Are you forgetting Anita Hill's charges against Thomas?

Morganna said:

mrincredible said:

The flaw in the checks and balances system regarding the federal judiciary is it only applies at the point of “hire.” My company does a drug screen when it hires someone but they could go in a raging coke bender every weekend ylfor years and there’s no follow-up. I feel like that’s where we are. If Thomas had pulled all this crap before he was appointed he might not have made it through the vetting process. 

Are you forgetting Anita Hill's charges against Thomas?

I'm still resentful at Biden for disregarding Anita Hill and also pushing through Thomas's senate confirmation.

There's a bigger flaw in our check and balances. Possibly fatal should Trump be elected. Its the pardon power. The absolute power to override Federal criminal convictions and even prevent prosecution. 

Our constitution empowered the president to be the supreme magistrate on Federal criminal matters.

Morganna said:

Are you forgetting Anita Hill's charges against Thomas?

No I’m not. I think those were serious and he should have been rejected as a result at the time.