Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett need to be impeached, whether or not they are found guilty by the Senate. Thomas on the grounds you have stated, Dr. Reich, and Barrett because she illegally put her religious prejudices ahead of the law. The First amendment is very clear on the separation of Church and State. All nine justices swore an oath to uphold the Constitution - not to reinterpret it according to their religious or personal bias. Amendment 1 begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting," then goes on to delineate the instances where laws may not be made. first and foremost is the establishment of religion. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCE may any law place religious credo in place of justice. Freedom of speech or the PRESS (which now includes the broader term media) cannot be abridged. PEACEFUL assembly must be allowed as well as he right to petition the Government. It is too bad that so many among the 'conservative movement' particularly the maniacal "Alt-Right" either have never read the Constitution, or if they read it they had not the wits to comprehend it.
AND Brett Kavanaugh who was never vetted or investigated by the FBI, that was supposed to take place. Trump stopped the investigation from happening AND Christopher Wray is a personal friend of Kavanaugh's. He is illegitimately placed on the court as was Coney Barrett.
Claire: virtually all of the 6 'conservative' justices were placed illegitimately. Presidents who did not win the popular vote chose them with evil intent. Until the gerrymandering and Electoral College are ended, along with any other schemes to keep voters from free and fair elections, we will continue to see tainted results.
That is true, but limited terms for Supreme Court Justices would rectify most of those errors in the future. Over all John Roberts hasn't been a horrible choice (unlike Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Thomas who don't even pay lip service to the Constitution) We haven't had a really great Supreme Court Justice since Earl Warren (who was a Republican appointee - Eisenhower, the last good Republican President) Burger and Rhenquist were forgettable. The worst opinions passed by the Roberts' Court were Citizens United and Roe v Wade. If we got rid of the terrible trio, I think Roberts would revert to following the Constitution. I often wonder if Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Thomas even bother to reference to the Constitution in their decisions.
And so was Gorsuch, who was installed after Obama's nomination wasn't even given a hearing. By the way, Sen. Merkley gave a principled 16-hour old-fashioned talking filibuster to protest Gorsuch's nomination, the way filibusters were meant to be used.
Yes, Claire, Trump's cheating did extend to the FBI and the Supreme Court. It shows us all how dangerous putting a con artist and mobster in office is for everyone who cares about justice. Trump deserves to be prosecuted, but I suspect justice will not be the result.
Hi, Ruth. I was just thinking, reading these several remarks, that what we've witnessed with Trump amounts to a cleansing and a warning. He's shown us our weaknesses. Perhaps THAT's the purpose of the antichrist (metaphorically speaking); it's to rip off all the bandaids. Perhaps our democratic government culture needed to be made more aware of how we have to hold things together, or else. Will this make our society more prone to showing up to vote? For every action, there's a . . .
Good thoughts, as Ben Franklin famously said, "a Republic, if you can keep it" Complacency is our worst enemy. We have to work at it to uphold a Democratic Republic.
I WILL give give "Boofer" Brett Kavanaugh one thing: for all his apparent incompetence, he has sided with the American people more often then not from what I have read. The same cannot be said for Barrett, who has made a full and complete fool of herself. I am almost tempted to think that lifetime appointments ARE a good thing, as the judges can and seem to do things those who placed them in power would DESTROY them for!
Knowing the law is one thing. Being an aware, awake, alert human being is quite another. Unfortunately, we have too many sheep on the current court. Several are deluded as to the nature and laws of reality by their church.
Terry Barber, I agree, but you give them too much credit. Their faith has nothing to do with it. A false justification it is, with separation between church and state in the Constitution. They just want raw, naked power!
Laurie, I do agree with the justices' drive for raw power. They hide behind their Catholic faith, supporting the conservative American Bishops, a group that hardly even recognizes the Pope who stands for the poor and stopping judging people. Raw power does get in the way of justice doesn't it.
Perhaps you should go read the Amendment again. What amendment is separate church and state?
First Amendment
The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear.
First Amendment and Religion | United States Courtshttps://www.uscourts.gov › educational-activities › first-a.
If you don't understand exactly what establish means, you need to go back to school for the rest of your life. But, since you obviously don't know, this should make it clear:
es·tab·lish
/əˈstabliSH,eˈstabliSH/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: establish; 3rd person present: establishes; past tense: established; past participle: established; gerund or present participle: establishing
1.
set up (an organization, system, or set of rules) on a firm or permanent basis.
initiate or bring about (contact or communication).
Congress cannot establish a religion, religion cannot be a test for running for office are the two I think of that's in the Constitution off the top of my head. Right there it says Congress should not be mixed with religion. Period.
It looks like only and old lady, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, could keep those crazies at bay. We need another woman like her. Strong and with an adamantium backbone.
It is way past time the “ peasants “ as we are looked upon, Storm the Bastille, not our Capital which represented the people which once stood for “ourDemocracy”.
Kate, notice how the Supreme Court has barricaded itself from protesters. They know they will make bad decisions and don't want anyone calling them on it, at least not where those conservative justices can see them. Cowards all!
It’s a fact that if we keep doing what we’re doing, then we continue to keep getting what we get.
Just because the Constitution states that all of the
“Appointed Supreme Court Injustices” are to hold lifetime positions, that is just ludicrous.
Our Constitution represents, and outlines the definition of Democracy, but the fact that the times, people, situations, along with the ongoing corruption, have distorted, twisted these words and bent them to their self serving, corrupt political platforms , then we must also implement any vital changes.
They have, and are still, mocking our true Constitution .
In light of all this, plus the fact that they all have been appointed-and not legally or ethically, then “We The People “ must demand Bipartisan decision making return.
They no longer represent the people, only their powers reign .
Kate Dushel ; True! They and most serving in the Supreme Court are illegitimates, with notable exceptions, which include the most recent member, Ketanji Brown Jackson. We need more like her.
Ruth Sheets ; Isn't it irritating to see their smiling faces sometimes? With the recent rulings it is especially jarring to me. The circumstances surrounding their admissions to the Court, in most cases, was flawed to the extent of illegality ; Cavanaugh, for example, was not properly investigated/ vetted as rquired by law. MS Barret and others went on about "settled law" when questioned about Roe V Wade. They deliberately gave assurances that gave the clear impression that they would not change it. Perjury by any other name is still perjury. Nothing will ever convince me otherwise. It was a violation of vows to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. Much of this malfeasance going back to the 'Original sin" of our country : Slavery and the Electoral College baked right into our 'justice' system!
Laurie, you are right about perjury. I am not sure what the procedure is, but there should be penalties for it. However, Republicans are totally OK with perjury as long as it is they who are doing it. Check out Santos, the chronic liar to get elected and the legal folks say there is nothing that can be done to force him to resign. I am grateful I can't see the warped expressions on any of the conservative SC members. I can hear the lies in their voices as they ask stupid questions and try to cover up their ignorance as well as their blatant racism, misogyny, homo/transphobia, xenophobia, and more. They think they are hot stuff because they have not been stopped and will go after other rights, claiming they have the right to take away from the American people whatever these SC fools choose. They are as ignorant as they were meant to be when they were nominated. The problem, they think they were nominated because they are so smart. They have no clue. Smart was not required, in fact it was better for them to be dumm to do the destruction Trump and Kump as well as the rest of the Republican party wanted and wants done. Disgusting
Ruth Sheets ; I agree, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" This kind of injustice is all too common, and it will destroy our country if some remedies are not found. they treat our governing process and laws like a football game being played with cheating. 'Winning ' is everything; the ends justifying the means. With a former president priding himself on his 'smarts' because the law allows him to cheat on his taxes, it is no surprise how we got here.
Fay, it truly is hard for me to comprehend the attempts to dismantle our Constitution conservatives are engaging in. They will do whatever they can to keep power for themselves, rich, white, straight, closed-minded men (and a few women if those women comply with whatever the men tell them to do). They want all those freedoms of the first amendment but just for themselves and in the way they interpret them. You are right they don't know the Constitution, but what is worse, they don't care. They would rather watch Fox Not Really News and go with whatever those closed-minded, bought, pathetic pundits say. We are in trouble here.
Ruth, I'm not convinced they understand what those freedoms are. Free speech for instance has been used to excuse lobbyists for outright corruption. But lobbyists are paid for their speech so it isn't free and they bribe members of Congress - both Representatives and Senators and probably the trumpster too, so that's definitely NOT free speech. The freedom of religion is even more misunderstood. "Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion" clearly means they may NOT pass a law establishing ANY religion, but 'they' (the conservatives) only read the second part of that statement "..or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" any normally intelligent person would read this as intended, that while Congress was forbidden to establish a STATE recognized the religion, the Congress was not to prevent the practice of any religion either. BUT beginning with the Eisenhower Administration, in 1954, Congress did exactly the opposite. First they added 'under god' to the Oath of Allegiance.Then in the ensuing years they have publicly insisted that ours is a Christian nation. IT IS NOT. Originally, prior to the European invasions, Pantheonic (multiple gods) was the religious standard. The influx of Europeans from the 15th Century on, included Roman Catholics, Protestants and Jews. We have since added Islam, Atheists, and others. This is what our Founders intended with the First Amendment, a religion free Country which welcomed and allowed all religions to exist unrestricted and unimpaired.
Isn't it ironic that the country the Founding Fathers broke away from because of being forced into religion now has far more religious freedom and diversity than we have here? The Puritans just forced their own brand of religion.
Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch should all be impeached, since they all lied to Congress during their confirmation hearings regarding Roe v. Wade and precedent. All of them had already made the decision to overturn that long-established right as soon as they had the opportunity. The problem is that we need 67 votes in the Senate to convict, which would never happen during this hyper-partisan time where winning means more than principles or truth.
Bud, yes, there is a problem when there is no reasonable way to remove a justice who has lied and broken his/her oath. Republicans love everything the conservative SC is doing and will do nothing to stop the bad behavior, bad decisions, and bad cases they agree to accept. They should be ashamed but people who are addicted to power and money have no shame, just the need for another hit and they don't care who is hurt when they get it.
Ruth - of course the Republicans in Congress won’t lift a finger to stop the ultra-conservative SC. After all, Republicans have been working for the last 40+ years to set the SC up so they could control it.
It's the fulfillment of the Powell Memo of 1971. It took just over 50 years, but really got started with Reagan being elected in 1980. I was in college, and everyone I knew thought his election was a bad idea. My dad, who was a Republican, turned Democrat during Reagan's 2nd term because of Iran/Contra. He said Republicans can't have power for more than 4 years because they always turn into criminals.
It certainly doesn't help when many Conservative justices believe, though probably would never say this part out loud, that the laws of their God supersede any of the laws of Humanity.
David, yes, their god does supercede the law, the god they have created to match what they want god to be so they can do whatever they want, a bunch of toddler-adults.
The ones with the purses may belong to organizations that have exploited the teachings of an ancient 'savior', but our Constitution is supposed to protect against the villainy of these plundering oppressors/organizations. They are circumventing the laws that say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Meanwhile, Wealthy 'people' and corporations give money to the Federalist Society and like organizations to 'support' it's 'conservative' worldview to the point where there are a majority of Catholics on the 'Supreme Court'; An unseemly number of whom have decided that the majority of women in this country cannot manage their fertility using methods and medical care that were legal for half a century, because it is 'murder' to terminate an eight celled blastocyst. This law is a religious view; is against the Law as written in the Constitution. They have violated their oaths of office and taken a freedom away from more than half of the citizens of the United States of America.
Laurie, the challenge is that Republicans, particularly those in power and those who worship those in power care nothing for the American people. They want their slice of Heaven and will do whatever they can to get it. There is nothing in scripture about doing that, but power certainly does corrupt everything it touches.
I totally agree, in the past a few judges were successfully impeached and removed from the bench. Today's legislators seem to wimpy to do the right thing.
Supreme court Justices are not governed by any code of ethics. The individual justices decide what they can and cannot do. Every other part of the judiciary is subject to ethical considerations. Justice Roberts can not compel Thomas to recuse himself and the Justice has shown no qualms about sitting in judgement of cases where he has received gifts and awards from either the parties or their attorneys. He will never do the right thing voluntarily, because that might put his wife at risk so one can only hope that there is enough pressure from the 8 other judges to force his hand.
And if she admits it’s a lie, she faces prosecution herself. Thomas is twice conflicted here. He himself is aware of her activities. He is also aware it’s a cynical power grab. He knows his wife would give perjured testimony. But, he’s her spouse, and perceives the legal jeopardy his recusal would place her in. It’s a tacit admission of her guilt.
It will never happen. He will continue to rule, she can’t admit her lie.
So the Conservative Justices seem to be above the law as long as they vote for and with the wealthy right wing radicals who gave them power and wealth!
Claire, the sad thing is that when corrupt people are voted into office, one can expect that they will nominate and appoint corrupt people for as many offices as possible. Just look at the train of appalling people Trump and his senate put into office over his 4 years and the corrupt fools that still cling to him hoping to reap the benefit of Trump's deep and broad corruption. It's awful!
I keep asking this; “If Merrick Garland states no man is above the law, and Thomas and his fellow conservatives are giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists, are they not guilty of breaking the law? Does the DOJ have an obligation to investigate them? If they have been found guilty of this crime, is it not the duty of The DOJ to indict them? It seem clear cut to me who holds sway over the behaviors of the men and women who have sworn oaths to uphold the law. Not decide law, mind you, only interpret it on an appeals basis. As they sit now, they’re no court, only an extension of the radical right. With their support of the radical right ideals and personal preferences not Constitutional guarantees afforded to all Americans, their illegal practice of leaking decisions in favor of religious beliefs unpopular with 70% of Americans ( both republican and democrat) there needs to be more than one route to negate this extension of a corrupt legislature.
Yes, Steve, Republicans will defend the corrupt inappropriate people they got into office to the bitter end and block anyone who tries to intervene to bring about some kind of justice. They all knew both impeachments of Trump proved his guilt, but just couldn't bring themselves to do the right thing. That does not say much for the quality of person that now inhabits the Republican party. Everyone needs to beware.
Martha Hoag: A Senate investigation, (if it's a thing), could shed light on her and others on the court, who have shown considerable hostility to the Constitution and, received gifts in a very dishonorable and, I would guess illegal way, could be investigated too. They all should be. So it is lengthy and 'divisive'. Justice delayed is justice denied, but it should be investigated and punished! We are all going to hell, in case many have not noticed! We need to stop this criminality at the very top of our Union!
Descended from a 'persecuted' Scottish ancestry + having had ancestors 'hung as witches in' about 1690 in salem MA' I totally agree. For what if honest anger is not honestly vented (?) It can become - violent retribution - (?) Maybe (?)
I’ll tell you something else, Laurie. Adam Schiff has an op-ed in the New York Times reminding us not to forget the members of Congress who enabled the insurrection. I don’t think any of this is over.
Oh, Laurie, you have called this correctly. No matter how long it takes, the corruption needs to be investigated. Then, the FBI for not investigating Kavanaugh before his Senate hearing, which he lied at, of course. Everything the Supreme Court conservatives rule on needs to be held suspect. The fact that Thomas who has a questionable connection to the insurgents is bringing up taking away the rights of human beings in this country related to reproductive freedom is a real problem which Congress should have addressed this term since the Republicans will be taking over the House and will do nothing to help anyone but themselves. I hope the Senate can stop their toddler behavior, but we'll see when those same Republicans start holding our nation hostage to their toddler demands.
Martha, you are right, and I think Ms. Ginny Thomas and her handlers knew well what they were doing, and that Clarence T. couldn't do anything about it. They had essentially bought a Supreme Court justice and got a right-wing fanatic in the bargain. I guess it was for them a big win and for the rest of us, something far less.
Her emails are already part of the public record, so her ability to give perjured testimony is limited. The problem has to do with whether or not they discussed her actions and whether that discussion affected his lone dissent. The person who would be in the most legal jeopardy for the Justice not his wife. The question is will he support her lie or will the other justices put the integrity of the court above the desires of one man.
Angela, I suspect it won't matter what Thomas actually does because there are 5 justices to protect Trump and Kump. There is little to no integrity among the conservative justices. Heck! They went along with Alito's insane defense of getting rid of Roe v. Wade. They must have known his logic and legal supports were full of holes and if carried to their final point, the 6 agreed with Alito that women are not covered by our Constitution so state legislators can do whatever they choose to us. This case was about abortion and reproductive rights but birth control is coming as are sure to be other misogynistic cases. I trust none of the 6 when it comes to integrity and caring about the American people. They answer to a crew of white religious fanatics, so be sure that whatever those guys want, the 6 will bow to. No one will care one bit that Ginny Thomas is an insurrectionist, that is, no one in judicial power. So much for John Roberts. He's the ringleader. No integrity there!
Unfortunately the views you express are quite common and justified. The interesting thing about them is that SCOTUS has no enforcement power. They can rule on whatever they choose but they cannont enforce anything they decide. They left abortion decisions up to the states and the majority said no thanks- we have no intention of limiting women's freedom of choiced. John Lennon asked, "what if they gave a war and nobody came?" Now the court is about to find out what happens when they issue rulings that the majority of the American people refuse to obey. It took the Federal Government to send troops to force the Southern states to admit black children to schools that were previously segregated. When the troops left, segregation reappeared. There is no way that Biden will order anyone in his administration to enforce any abortion or birth control bans. The court pleased a few fanatics but even red states, have resisted their attempts to take away women's freedom to choose. See the results of the referendums where abortion was on the ballot or the candidate was a committed right to life fanatic. Alito and Thomas sacrificed the court's integrity for nothing and now it grows ever more likely that there will be changes on the way the court functions, with term limits for appointees as the least disruptive proposal up to and including expanding the number of justices on the court.
Angela, excellent points! I hope more states will start to see the insanity of making women second-class citizens. When a bunch of mediocre conservative justices and judges are put out to play with no supervision (term limits for example), they will bring out their biases, prejudices, and ignorance. This gang of 6 SC conservatives just don't care, though. Already in Texas a charge against a woman seeking an abortion was dismissed. It would be great if that happened everywhere, making the anti-Roe v. Wade ruling irrelevant. I would hope the SC conservatives would learn from the election results, but they are trying hard to earn their Heaven points, and those points exclude rights for women. Even Barrett is into denying women rights. That is just crazy, but fits with why she was nominated in the first place.
It is prehistoric, corrupt and self serving, that the Supreme Court injustices- who we did not vote for -are allowed to serve life time appointments??
That must be changed, especially because they have the power, the final decision, the final word in all decision making , and allowed to over turn any vital political issues When, How has our country allowed a King to reign over us ?
@Kate. Lifetime appointments are in the Constitution, Article III. For practical reasons there is no chance of an amendment to this to be passed. It's funny though, because this bunch of crazies might rule that Article III doesn't matter just so Republicans could attack sensible, balanced judges all the way down the system! LOL
Benjamin, yep, this court of crazies could try something like negating the Constitution, or parts of it. Their oaths clearly mean nothing to them, even sworn on a Bible, and they claim to be committed Christians (that's a laugh). They even go to Medieval and 17th century made-up laws to make their stupid, but very harmful decisions. That is exactly what the Federalist Society was hoping would happen. They love being the "power behind the throne" and we are not supposed to have a king. Our court has taken powers the Constitution did not actually give it. They should never have a final say on anything. There are supposed to be 3 co-equal branches of government, not two lower branches and a court that can do whatever it wants. They clearly loved slavery in the past and are OK with a bunch of non-white, non-male people being considered second-class citizens and allowing states to make up all kinds of voting restrictions when our Constitution says that every citizen 18 years and older has the right to vote. So when those restrictions are OKed by the SC, they are going against the Constitution. They don't seem to have a problem with that at all. Now, today, the SC out of nowhere has ruled that protesters at health centers have the right to protest wherever they want because it is their first amendment right. However, protesters are not allowed to protest at the Supreme Court and other places that non-right-wing folks might want their voices heard. The non-right-wingers get arrested while those who intimidate women going for health care are, short of actually hurting someone, allowed to do whatever with impunity. Yep, the SC is out of control and needs to be reined in.
Hmm. Who was it just recently wanted to turn over the Constitution of our once United States because he still believes( or really only pretends to use for his current platform)
I’ll give you a hint:
Our previous dictator , DT.
It appears that many of his previous at staunch prior Repugnant minions are now jumping ship, eating each other up. 😳
Perhaps if you go online and order some of his new $99 super hero trading cards you can help him get out of all of his legal fees, and he can also use the proceeds to build another one of his Trump towers
Ginni Thomas is typically referred to as a “conservative activist,” which is incorrect.
She is a political OPERATIVE and consultant, paid very handsomely, in no small part because of who her husband is, and she, not her husband, is the major breadwinner in that family.
And, like almost all married couples, their finances are commingled. What she earns he banks, and spends and vice versa.
As such, even when Ginni Thomas is not promoting or influencing matters that are or will be before the Supreme Court, there is nothing on her plate that, by virtue of financial interest, does not potentially influence the vote of her husband on the Court (I’d add that it influences the questions he asks of lawyers during oral arguments, but he’s more silent than — as the Lina Lamont character in the great musical comedy “Singin’ in the Rain” puts it so memorably, “Calvin Coolidge, put t’gither!”).
Yes, because of this glaring conflict of interest Clarence Thomas should resign from the court or, in the absence of retirement, recuse himself from any case in which his wife has taken as much as a nickel for promoting the conservatives’ cause. At the very least, every 5-4 case ever argued during Clarence Thomas’s decades on the court in which he was part of the majority needs to be re-litigated., because their outcomes, each and every one of them, smell like week-old fish.
Abe Fortas was forced to resign in 1969 after accepting $20,000 from financier Louis Wolfson while Wolfson was being investigated for insider trading. He was pressured into resigning by Nixon's AG, John Mitchell (later convicted), and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist as a way to pack the court.
Anthony Kennedy was likely pressured into retiring by 45 over issues with Kennedy's son's conduct at Deutsche Bank in giving loans to 45's organizations. Another example of using pressure to pack the court?
It seems odd that current glaring issues do not seem to be worthy of outrage or even of note or a reason for action.
A direct bribe or transfer of money or some other item of value in implied consideration of actions in office is obviously both easier to prove and use a leverage to effect something such as the resignation of any sitting federal official.
While the presumed commingling Thomases’ finances is, in a general sense, in plain sight, there is no direct cause and effect that anyone, from a prosecutor to the press, can force a justice into a position of such irredeemable illegitimacy that he must resign.
From a criminal law point of view, yes. Lawyers and judges, however, are actually held to higher standards than just criminal liability or neglect. Even the appearance of impropriety is seen as an issue.
As ABA's Model Rules of Judicial Conduct, Rule 1.2, states:
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
The comments to the rule are even more illustrative (especially [5]):
[1] Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct and conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety. This principle applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge.
[2] A judge should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the restrictions imposed by the Code.
[3] Conduct that compromises or appears to compromise the independence, integrity, and impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary. Because it is not practicable to list all such conduct, the Rule is necessarily cast in general terms.
[4] Judges should participate in activities that promote ethical conduct among judges and lawyers, support professionalism within the judiciary and the legal profession, and promote access to justice for all.
[5] Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules or provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.
[6] A judge should initiate and participate in community outreach activities for the purpose of promoting public understanding of and confidence in the administration of justice. In conducting such activities, the judge must act in a manner consistent with this Code.
Dr. Doug : Thanks for your marvalously Informative Post. I found this the be most revealing in reguard to ethics in the governance of judicial behavior of the judicial system at large and the Supreem Count in particular. Verypowerful information indeed ! !
Charges of impropriety are filed internally against judges frequently. Doesn't have to be filed by a party. But they will not be considered without hard evidence.
The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980(link is external), 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364, establishes a process by which any person can file a complaint alleging a federal judge has engaged in “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” or has become, by reason of a mental or physical disability, “unable to discharge all the duties” of the judicial office.
Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (pdf),
Very rarely happens with judges. There is a bit of a double standard.
In Colorado we had a fairly public issue with one federal judge who had some rather severe issues that came to light with visits to a gentlemen's club. The issues were seen to materially impact his performance.
He was pressured to resign from the bench and then went back home and re-opened a law practice. An attorney might have been suspended or disbarred in a similar situation.
Another tidbit about Ginni Thomas, she earned a law degree but it appears she never passed the bar exam, she failed it once, for sure, and she never practiced law.....a bitter gadfly, trouble maker who couldn't join the legal profession.
The right wing SC does not care. They are bought. I heard and maybe you can confirm 3 of them were lawyers in Florida 2000 Gore/Bush trying to stop the vote. The 4th person was Marco Rubio. Break the law , get a promotion. It’s simple math. Tragic. Yes OUT Thomas. Sadly they are so insulated and we are not organized to derail their momentum.
This post trump era is revealing so many areas where accountability is neither enforced or even considered - depending on who you are. We need to get Democrats in control of all 3 branches so we can right the wrongs, provide clear and undisputable laws/guidelines, and itemize what happens to those who find a way around our Constitution and laws.
Thomas was quoted in an article as saying, "The liberals have made my life hell for 20 years and now I'm going to make their lives hell" Sen Whitehouse has written a letter to the chief asking him to designate someone to testify before his Senate committee. No response. Whitehouse is fed up with this SuCt. See his books CAPTURED and THE SCHEME. The six on the court have lost the respect of the legal community and, indeed, lay citizens as well. Because the selection SOP is political, we too often get less than sterling legal minds; instead, we get party apparatchiks. The way Alaska selects its judiciary is contrary and it gets the best legal minds the state has to offer. See THE CASE AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT, by Chemerinsky; look in index under Alaska. There appears to be no hope for the court until the SOP is drastically changed. As for Thomas, he seems "twisted" in the sense that he appears to be against all the societal aspects that made it possible for him to advance career-wise; and, justice seems to be the least thing he thinks about. The Trump legal battle that looms gives one the "willies" when thinking of it going to this court. Still, the light that will be shown on the harmful irregularities, their number and magnitude, by the legal proceedings will have the beneficial effect we "all" desire; one can only hope.
28 U.S. Code § 455 is a law without enforcement or a penalty. There are too many of these laws on the books. Despite that, any and all pressure should be brought to bear to check current behavior.
The current situation illustrates the need for a disciplined, long-term effort to bring the Federal court system into its proper place in a 21st Century democracy. The Supreme Court, in particular, is a relic of the colonial era and 18th Century England. It may have been the best we could do in the 18th Century but a modern democracy demands more.
As Sheldon Whithouse has noted, building awareness by pulling back the curtains and letting a bit of sunlight in, is needed. From there, much can and should be done including making the court a suitable size for a large country (e.g. Germany with two panels of 8 members), introducing term limits, and developing an ethics system with enforcement. Even the internal debate rules with serial case debates from most tenured (Thomas) to least (Jackson) are woefully out of date.
One would hope that a Chief Justice, who is a guardian of the institution, would be the first to drive for modernization and transparency. Sadly, that is not what we are seeing.
Sorry but for every right there is a remedy. Judges have been penalized under this statute. The problem has been that nobody is willing to challenge SCOTUS.
Part of the problem at SCOTUS is that lawyers are afraid to challenge the justices for bias. "Party bias" is not generally an acceptable basis for recusal. Need hard evidence. I did see that at one time some environmental groups had alleged bias, but that was years ago and they obviously did not make a record, which I think is essential. Generally when apparent improprieties are alleged, judges on the record address them.
Personally, I think this is the most serious & immediate problem we have. The conservative majority on the Supreme Crt. has been bought & they have no shame. They are poised to rule in a manner that will cause catastrophic harm to our democracy.
We have three equal branches of govt. The purpose of having three equal branches is so they can act as checks on each other if one branch goes rogue. What we have now is a Supreme Crt. (for the 1st time in our history) majority colluding with seditious members of the legislative branch to fundamentally alter how Americans are governed as well as how we live.
RR suggests Chief Justice Roberts should publicly state that Justice Thomas must recuse himself from cases having to do with the 2020 election because his wife was intimately involved with republicans who planned and attempted to overthrow our government. But, I think if Chief Justice Roberts was inclined to do that he would have already done it. Which, by the way says a great deal about how he views the situation.
But, wait--there’s a federal law requiring any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the U.S. to disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Notice it says “might reasonably be questioned.” It doesn’t say there needs to be proof of a conflict of interest. Since in actuality Justice Thomas has already violated that law, the Dept. of Justice could convene a Grand Jury to to hear evidence to that effect and recommend charging Thomas with a crime. Considering DOJ’s reluctance to pursue a former president for conspiring to overthrow our govt. by a violent insurrection to keep himself in power, I doubt the DOJ is interested in doing that. (Why DOJ wouldn’t be interested is another question for another day.)
Another alternative is for the senate to hold public hearings on Justice Thomas’ alleged violation of the law & consider whether or not he in fact violated it.
It seems to me if the senate were to do something like that they should go all the way down that road and impeach him.
Here’s the thing, trust in the U.S. Supreme Court is currently extremely low. The reason is because the Court’s conservative majority has been co-opted by a political process that has in turn resulted in a loss of the Court’s legitimacy as an independent branch of our government. If the American public doesn’t believe the Court is legitimate, the Rule of Law also loses legitimacy and that’s a problem so over-whelming it can’t be dealt with here. There’s one other alternative RR didn’t mention, and that’s to expand the Court by 4 more justices.
Expansion of the Supreme Court by 4 justices would restore its legitimacy. Currently, what we have is a bare majority of a handful of unaccountable, unelected justices who became justices because one party blatantly refused to follow two-hundred fifty year old norms, which had never before been done. Even worse, they did it in order to promote a radical ideology extremist politicians wanted that’s unequivocally against the best interests of the majority of Americans.
Adding 4 seats would bring the size of the Court into alignment with the number of circuit courts, which is historically pertinent in the history of Supreme Court expansion. Today, there are 13 circuit courts, so it makes perfect sense to follow precedent and set the number of justices at 13. As RR said, “The point of the federal law governing judicial conflicts of interest is to preserve the public’s trust in our legal system by eliminating even the appearance of partiality.” The sooner this is addressed, the better it will be.
Impeachment of any Supreme Court judge is not going to happen.Despite that it could be worthwhile for the Senate to hold some hearings as a way of reaching a broader public on the threat. They have to choose their battles however.
I agree Steve & Jan. Impeachment would be an appropriate remedy, but it’s unlikely considering the state of things right now. I think the worst thing would be to do nothing, because doing nothing would be like playing Russian roulette with a conservative majority that has already created havoc with their ruling on abortion. Expanding the Court by 4 Justices makes the most sense. It doesn’t require a formal investigation of wrongdoing but it takes care of a very serious problem and as I said, it would mean there’s one Justice for each of the 13 circuits which is a necessary change anyway.
I'm all for expansion of the Court, it just seems like we can't get there.More and more I think it's going to be some outside force that causes change unless we have a collapse largely brought on by internal forces .it's just hard to see how step-by-step progress toward democratization is going to happen. Fortunately, the world is richer than my imagination.
Just a quick note : We entered this slippery slope before without consideration for the potential consequencis of such . . . whichs brought us to where we currently are.
The Supremes have given themselves the privilege to not prosecute family members. Ginny under this statute would not have to testify. Clarence Thomas is a crook. Why are judges taking money from lobbyists? Is everything for sale? Well I was raised to respect people and their beliefs. Justice Roberts is not in charge of anything. I have never seen so much corruption in our Courts. Get rid of Filibuster, Citizens United, Gerrymandering. And the damn Electoral College is the worst of all voter suppression. The Republicans are the not able to win unless they cheat. Our elections have been rigged for decades. All you need to do is cheat. Bull sugar! Until we can stop the madness of the MAGA we will never be free.
They bought 6 justices. Roberts and Kavanaugh were the Point Counsel for the FL mess in 2000, Gorsuch's Mom wrecked the EPA, and Thomas + Alito are terrifyingly corrupt monetarily. This has been a 50 year plan. And it worked - because most Democrats only vote for President and are literally asleep. Watch Fox for 30 minutes - you will come away terrified. If we are thinking it's only Thomas, we haven't paid attention. Reagan was the "original Trump". An ugly racist, anti-semite and misogynist. Educate yourself on Iran-Contra - your head will explode.
I am a college professor currently, but I was an Economist for a money center bank for 20 years. I assign my students this substack.
Blame Democrats (we have such thick skin!) - no differently than a fireman who tries to save your house or a police officer who tries to break up a violent riot (they had their prints on it last, didn't they?).
PS: Just kidding - the educators are to blame (who else would teach children to expect better?)...
The issue in the Moore case - and the fact Judge Thomas is unlikely to recuse - is further reason for the Special Counsel to include Ginni Thomas as a co-conspirator with Trump and the rest of those - including several sitting members of Congress - who conspired to overthrow our 2020 presidential election. If my memory serves me correct, the way Abe Fortas, many years ago, was "convinced" to resign from the court was because of an issue regarding his wife. Maybe this would be the way to get Thomas to resign - some kind of "deal" regarding his wife. The reality in America is the Supreme Court has been turning this nation to the "right" for, at least, since the Bush v Gore decision deciding the 2000 election. A decision which brought us Iraq and Afghanistan - two shameful "blots" on American history. That was followed by the "Citizens United" decision and then McConnell's preventing President Obama from putting Merrick Garland on the court. Still, democratic voters didn't feel the importance of Supreme Court Justices enough to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Hopefully, they now realize EVERY election going forward is CRITICAL if, for no other reason, than to prevent another right wing Justice being appointed by a republican president. Republicans have been focused for years on the Court AND the state legislatures for the very reason behind the upcoming Moore decision. It's unlikely the issue with Ginni Thomas will resolve itself by the time this decision comes down - but we KNOW how Judge Thomas is going to vote and we KNOW the court doesn't care enough about it's "poll numbers" to urge him to recuse. To me, this is clear evidence that the republican "slow motion" coup d'etat has been surreptitiously moving along out of "view" of our so-called "liberal media" for several decades. Trump might be fading away but the danger persists. And, for anyone who believes Ginni Thomas when she claims to "never" share her politics with her husband, well, I've got a .....................................
I don't know this as a fact, but Thomas' email account was allegedly used by his wife. If true, at a minimum, he is a material witness in the 1/6 case.
Also, despite what others may say, IMHO Roberts can censure and even sanction Thomas. Justices have an inherent contempt authority. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that federal courts possess inherent authority to punish contempt—i.e., disobedience of a court order or obstruction of justice—and to impose other sanctions on parties or attorneys who engage in misconduct. See United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 299 (1947).
Chief Justice Roberts has abdicated his role as Chief. Enough time has passed at this point that it should be assumed he has no intention of sanctioning or censuring Justice Thomas. I agree with David Hill that J.Roberts is too busy being “outraged” about other things. What he should have done and could have done was immediately give J. Thomas a choice to either recuse pending an investigation or retire.
I like the idea of including Ginni Thomas as a co-conspirator along with about 2 dozen members of Congress and making some kind of deal with Thomas to retire or watch his wife be prosecuted.
I also very strongly believe those in Congress who participated in planning the insurrection and who were foolish enough to support it after it failed, must be forced out of Congress pursuant to Sec. 3 of the 14th amendment. It should be fairly simple to produce evidence of their participation and by so doing they ipso facto must depart. They could be given the same choice--leave Congress pursuant to the 14th amendment or be prosecuted for Conspiracy.
It should be kept in mind at all times that these people believe they have a mission to fulfill. Chastising them for their illegal behavior isn’t going to stop them from continuing to pursue their mission. They’re not in Congress to work on behalf of the American people, they’re in Congress to force us to give up our rights granted by the Constitution and submit to tyranny so they can establish a national religion, among other things.
And let’s not forget these republicans knowingly enlisted the help of white nationalists as well as evangelicals to to accomplish their goals. I don’t know this for a fact, but there are signs that white nationalists/supremacists are scattered throughout our government and our military, including elite intel agencies.
According to Politico, the Justice Department has arrested more than 850 Capitol riot suspects and more than 325 of them have pleaded guilty. But I worry that there are thousands more biding their time, practicing military drills until the next attempt to overthrow our government and that’s precisely why the govt. needs to aggressively demonstrate that no quarter will be given to participants whether they’re in Congress or elsewhere.
Clearly the events of 8/23/2020 in Belarus proved not to be a deterrent (it seems Lukashenko in the streets with his assault rifle was, if anything, an incentive to go looking at the source for their benefits)...
Nicely put, and I (we) can hope you're right about Roberts and that he'll care enough about the image this Court is creating to "do the right thing." (That said, remembering Roberts was key to the Citizen's United blasphemy)
Roberts seems too busy being "outraged" over media leaks of pending draconian and unpopular decisions by his justices, probably done at least indirectly by the justices themselves who can't contain their glee that they get to legally assert their Christian Dominionism on the rest of us, to do the right and just thing with Justice Thomas.
We (Americans) are no more ready to hold Clarence Thomas accountable today as we were when Anita Hill accused him of sexual harassment, when Congress pulled a high tech lynching on her. On the other hand, we're also not ready to see a SCOTUS that does not favor male privilege. Comments? ~RD
Actually, thirty years ago - but it was really the public that evolved (as no one in their right mind ever thought about risking harassment in the workplace so overtly ever again!)...
His partisan actions, political involvement in the Court, acceptance of gratuities, speaking at far right orgs gatherings, refusal to recuse himself, and he and his wife’s connections with Jan 6th should be placed in Articles of Impeachment.
But, right away, Congress needs to enact rules of Conduct for SCOTUS, subject to findings of malfeasance for jurors violating these standards. And stack the Court.
I agree, and J.Thomas isn’t the only justice doing those things. J. Kavanaugh was recently photographed partying with known white supremacist Stephen Miller. That’s terrifying in light of the recent uptick of antisemitism, erosion of civil rights, and increase in police executions of black people who are minding their own business.
Ma'am - the vaccines we have work very well. You need to get boosters, but they work 95% efficacy. The treatments change as the virus mutates, but most of the treatments are incredibly effective. You need to get them from a Doctor. You are very wrong about this, scientifically, as many people with more medical experience than I have (married to a Dr).
You are not my "moral compass" - I'm 58 years old, and I don't need your help. Both sides do NOT do it. The Democrats are very different than the GQP. Watch 3 nights of MSNBC - you will learn lots of amazing things.
Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett need to be impeached, whether or not they are found guilty by the Senate. Thomas on the grounds you have stated, Dr. Reich, and Barrett because she illegally put her religious prejudices ahead of the law. The First amendment is very clear on the separation of Church and State. All nine justices swore an oath to uphold the Constitution - not to reinterpret it according to their religious or personal bias. Amendment 1 begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting," then goes on to delineate the instances where laws may not be made. first and foremost is the establishment of religion. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCE may any law place religious credo in place of justice. Freedom of speech or the PRESS (which now includes the broader term media) cannot be abridged. PEACEFUL assembly must be allowed as well as he right to petition the Government. It is too bad that so many among the 'conservative movement' particularly the maniacal "Alt-Right" either have never read the Constitution, or if they read it they had not the wits to comprehend it.
AND Brett Kavanaugh who was never vetted or investigated by the FBI, that was supposed to take place. Trump stopped the investigation from happening AND Christopher Wray is a personal friend of Kavanaugh's. He is illegitimately placed on the court as was Coney Barrett.
Claire: virtually all of the 6 'conservative' justices were placed illegitimately. Presidents who did not win the popular vote chose them with evil intent. Until the gerrymandering and Electoral College are ended, along with any other schemes to keep voters from free and fair elections, we will continue to see tainted results.
That is true, but limited terms for Supreme Court Justices would rectify most of those errors in the future. Over all John Roberts hasn't been a horrible choice (unlike Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Thomas who don't even pay lip service to the Constitution) We haven't had a really great Supreme Court Justice since Earl Warren (who was a Republican appointee - Eisenhower, the last good Republican President) Burger and Rhenquist were forgettable. The worst opinions passed by the Roberts' Court were Citizens United and Roe v Wade. If we got rid of the terrible trio, I think Roberts would revert to following the Constitution. I often wonder if Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Thomas even bother to reference to the Constitution in their decisions.
And so was Gorsuch, who was installed after Obama's nomination wasn't even given a hearing. By the way, Sen. Merkley gave a principled 16-hour old-fashioned talking filibuster to protest Gorsuch's nomination, the way filibusters were meant to be used.
My Senator!!
Mine, too & I'm very pleased with him.
Absolutely!
Yes, Claire, Trump's cheating did extend to the FBI and the Supreme Court. It shows us all how dangerous putting a con artist and mobster in office is for everyone who cares about justice. Trump deserves to be prosecuted, but I suspect justice will not be the result.
Hi, Ruth. I was just thinking, reading these several remarks, that what we've witnessed with Trump amounts to a cleansing and a warning. He's shown us our weaknesses. Perhaps THAT's the purpose of the antichrist (metaphorically speaking); it's to rip off all the bandaids. Perhaps our democratic government culture needed to be made more aware of how we have to hold things together, or else. Will this make our society more prone to showing up to vote? For every action, there's a . . .
Good thoughts, as Ben Franklin famously said, "a Republic, if you can keep it" Complacency is our worst enemy. We have to work at it to uphold a Democratic Republic.
I WILL give give "Boofer" Brett Kavanaugh one thing: for all his apparent incompetence, he has sided with the American people more often then not from what I have read. The same cannot be said for Barrett, who has made a full and complete fool of herself. I am almost tempted to think that lifetime appointments ARE a good thing, as the judges can and seem to do things those who placed them in power would DESTROY them for!
Of the 5 extremists, Kavanaugh is probably most likely to cast a reasonable vote, but that still is less than 10% of the decisions from what I see.
Agreed, there are others besides those 3. But impeaching those three would be a great start.
Knowing the law is one thing. Being an aware, awake, alert human being is quite another. Unfortunately, we have too many sheep on the current court. Several are deluded as to the nature and laws of reality by their church.
Terry Barber, I agree, but you give them too much credit. Their faith has nothing to do with it. A false justification it is, with separation between church and state in the Constitution. They just want raw, naked power!
Laurie, I do agree with the justices' drive for raw power. They hide behind their Catholic faith, supporting the conservative American Bishops, a group that hardly even recognizes the Pope who stands for the poor and stopping judging people. Raw power does get in the way of justice doesn't it.
To all of you, I must bid farewell for a short time but what has been said “ I’ll be back”.
👍😏
But, they use religion as an excuse to gain and extend their personal power.
The separation of church and state is not in the constitution
Perhaps you should go read the Amendment again. What amendment is separate church and state?
First Amendment
The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear.
First Amendment and Religion | United States Courtshttps://www.uscourts.gov › educational-activities › first-a.
That's clear enough.
If you don't understand exactly what establish means, you need to go back to school for the rest of your life. But, since you obviously don't know, this should make it clear:
es·tab·lish
/əˈstabliSH,eˈstabliSH/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: establish; 3rd person present: establishes; past tense: established; past participle: established; gerund or present participle: establishing
1.
set up (an organization, system, or set of rules) on a firm or permanent basis.
initiate or bring about (contact or communication).
2.
achieve permanent acceptance or recognition for.
Got it!
Isn’t that kinda the 1st Amendment?
Linda: would you care to elaborate? Please explain your thinking.
Congress cannot establish a religion, religion cannot be a test for running for office are the two I think of that's in the Constitution off the top of my head. Right there it says Congress should not be mixed with religion. Period.
It looks like only and old lady, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, could keep those crazies at bay. We need another woman like her. Strong and with an adamantium backbone.
We have one: Ketanji Brown Jackson. We just need more.
I think that our newest justice may take that role.
I certainly hope so.
“Adamantium backbone” - good one!
paulahik ; Even a strong woman with an adamantium backbone would be outnumbered in the stacked partisan court. Adding a few of them would help though.
That's adamantine (hard as a diamond)
Just felt the need to say Hear Hear ! ! As always Eyes Open ! ! Awakened not woke; Educated not indoctrinated ! !
Hear, Hear
It is way past time the “ peasants “ as we are looked upon, Storm the Bastille, not our Capital which represented the people which once stood for “ourDemocracy”.
😠👍
Kate, notice how the Supreme Court has barricaded itself from protesters. They know they will make bad decisions and don't want anyone calling them on it, at least not where those conservative justices can see them. Cowards all!
Amen to that!
It’s a fact that if we keep doing what we’re doing, then we continue to keep getting what we get.
Just because the Constitution states that all of the
“Appointed Supreme Court Injustices” are to hold lifetime positions, that is just ludicrous.
Our Constitution represents, and outlines the definition of Democracy, but the fact that the times, people, situations, along with the ongoing corruption, have distorted, twisted these words and bent them to their self serving, corrupt political platforms , then we must also implement any vital changes.
They have, and are still, mocking our true Constitution .
In light of all this, plus the fact that they all have been appointed-and not legally or ethically, then “We The People “ must demand Bipartisan decision making return.
They no longer represent the people, only their powers reign .
Kate Dushel ; True! They and most serving in the Supreme Court are illegitimates, with notable exceptions, which include the most recent member, Ketanji Brown Jackson. We need more like her.
True ; The Federalist Society should not be in the driver's seat anymore! No more of their handpicked 'appointees' for life, or even at all!
Ruth Sheets ; Isn't it irritating to see their smiling faces sometimes? With the recent rulings it is especially jarring to me. The circumstances surrounding their admissions to the Court, in most cases, was flawed to the extent of illegality ; Cavanaugh, for example, was not properly investigated/ vetted as rquired by law. MS Barret and others went on about "settled law" when questioned about Roe V Wade. They deliberately gave assurances that gave the clear impression that they would not change it. Perjury by any other name is still perjury. Nothing will ever convince me otherwise. It was a violation of vows to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. Much of this malfeasance going back to the 'Original sin" of our country : Slavery and the Electoral College baked right into our 'justice' system!
Laurie, you are right about perjury. I am not sure what the procedure is, but there should be penalties for it. However, Republicans are totally OK with perjury as long as it is they who are doing it. Check out Santos, the chronic liar to get elected and the legal folks say there is nothing that can be done to force him to resign. I am grateful I can't see the warped expressions on any of the conservative SC members. I can hear the lies in their voices as they ask stupid questions and try to cover up their ignorance as well as their blatant racism, misogyny, homo/transphobia, xenophobia, and more. They think they are hot stuff because they have not been stopped and will go after other rights, claiming they have the right to take away from the American people whatever these SC fools choose. They are as ignorant as they were meant to be when they were nominated. The problem, they think they were nominated because they are so smart. They have no clue. Smart was not required, in fact it was better for them to be dumm to do the destruction Trump and Kump as well as the rest of the Republican party wanted and wants done. Disgusting
Ruth Sheets ; I agree, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" This kind of injustice is all too common, and it will destroy our country if some remedies are not found. they treat our governing process and laws like a football game being played with cheating. 'Winning ' is everything; the ends justifying the means. With a former president priding himself on his 'smarts' because the law allows him to cheat on his taxes, it is no surprise how we got here.
Fay, it truly is hard for me to comprehend the attempts to dismantle our Constitution conservatives are engaging in. They will do whatever they can to keep power for themselves, rich, white, straight, closed-minded men (and a few women if those women comply with whatever the men tell them to do). They want all those freedoms of the first amendment but just for themselves and in the way they interpret them. You are right they don't know the Constitution, but what is worse, they don't care. They would rather watch Fox Not Really News and go with whatever those closed-minded, bought, pathetic pundits say. We are in trouble here.
Ruth, I'm not convinced they understand what those freedoms are. Free speech for instance has been used to excuse lobbyists for outright corruption. But lobbyists are paid for their speech so it isn't free and they bribe members of Congress - both Representatives and Senators and probably the trumpster too, so that's definitely NOT free speech. The freedom of religion is even more misunderstood. "Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion" clearly means they may NOT pass a law establishing ANY religion, but 'they' (the conservatives) only read the second part of that statement "..or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" any normally intelligent person would read this as intended, that while Congress was forbidden to establish a STATE recognized the religion, the Congress was not to prevent the practice of any religion either. BUT beginning with the Eisenhower Administration, in 1954, Congress did exactly the opposite. First they added 'under god' to the Oath of Allegiance.Then in the ensuing years they have publicly insisted that ours is a Christian nation. IT IS NOT. Originally, prior to the European invasions, Pantheonic (multiple gods) was the religious standard. The influx of Europeans from the 15th Century on, included Roman Catholics, Protestants and Jews. We have since added Islam, Atheists, and others. This is what our Founders intended with the First Amendment, a religion free Country which welcomed and allowed all religions to exist unrestricted and unimpaired.
Isn't it ironic that the country the Founding Fathers broke away from because of being forced into religion now has far more religious freedom and diversity than we have here? The Puritans just forced their own brand of religion.
Bravo! my thoughts too!
Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch should all be impeached, since they all lied to Congress during their confirmation hearings regarding Roe v. Wade and precedent. All of them had already made the decision to overturn that long-established right as soon as they had the opportunity. The problem is that we need 67 votes in the Senate to convict, which would never happen during this hyper-partisan time where winning means more than principles or truth.
Bud, yes, there is a problem when there is no reasonable way to remove a justice who has lied and broken his/her oath. Republicans love everything the conservative SC is doing and will do nothing to stop the bad behavior, bad decisions, and bad cases they agree to accept. They should be ashamed but people who are addicted to power and money have no shame, just the need for another hit and they don't care who is hurt when they get it.
Ruth - of course the Republicans in Congress won’t lift a finger to stop the ultra-conservative SC. After all, Republicans have been working for the last 40+ years to set the SC up so they could control it.
It's the fulfillment of the Powell Memo of 1971. It took just over 50 years, but really got started with Reagan being elected in 1980. I was in college, and everyone I knew thought his election was a bad idea. My dad, who was a Republican, turned Democrat during Reagan's 2nd term because of Iran/Contra. He said Republicans can't have power for more than 4 years because they always turn into criminals.
Or are already criminally minded to begin with
It certainly doesn't help when many Conservative justices believe, though probably would never say this part out loud, that the laws of their God supersede any of the laws of Humanity.
David, yes, their god does supercede the law, the god they have created to match what they want god to be so they can do whatever they want, a bunch of toddler-adults.
The ones with the purses may belong to organizations that have exploited the teachings of an ancient 'savior', but our Constitution is supposed to protect against the villainy of these plundering oppressors/organizations. They are circumventing the laws that say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Meanwhile, Wealthy 'people' and corporations give money to the Federalist Society and like organizations to 'support' it's 'conservative' worldview to the point where there are a majority of Catholics on the 'Supreme Court'; An unseemly number of whom have decided that the majority of women in this country cannot manage their fertility using methods and medical care that were legal for half a century, because it is 'murder' to terminate an eight celled blastocyst. This law is a religious view; is against the Law as written in the Constitution. They have violated their oaths of office and taken a freedom away from more than half of the citizens of the United States of America.
Laurie, the challenge is that Republicans, particularly those in power and those who worship those in power care nothing for the American people. They want their slice of Heaven and will do whatever they can to get it. There is nothing in scripture about doing that, but power certainly does corrupt everything it touches.
Ruth Sheets ; The problem is that it will not be Heaven that they will get a slice of, if things continue to go their way.
Yet they make all these ludicrous claims about what the Constitution says which have no basis in fact.
Fay Reid, very well-said & analyzed. I don't hold my breath for anything of substance to be done, but we know its what *should* be done...
I totally agree, in the past a few judges were successfully impeached and removed from the bench. Today's legislators seem to wimpy to do the right thing.
Fay Reid ; Nor any desire or intention to follow it.
It's called a coup.
couldn't have said it better myself
Supreme court Justices are not governed by any code of ethics. The individual justices decide what they can and cannot do. Every other part of the judiciary is subject to ethical considerations. Justice Roberts can not compel Thomas to recuse himself and the Justice has shown no qualms about sitting in judgement of cases where he has received gifts and awards from either the parties or their attorneys. He will never do the right thing voluntarily, because that might put his wife at risk so one can only hope that there is enough pressure from the 8 other judges to force his hand.
And if she admits it’s a lie, she faces prosecution herself. Thomas is twice conflicted here. He himself is aware of her activities. He is also aware it’s a cynical power grab. He knows his wife would give perjured testimony. But, he’s her spouse, and perceives the legal jeopardy his recusal would place her in. It’s a tacit admission of her guilt.
It will never happen. He will continue to rule, she can’t admit her lie.
So the Conservative Justices seem to be above the law as long as they vote for and with the wealthy right wing radicals who gave them power and wealth!
Members of SCOTUS are subject to criminal law for their personal conduct. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/perjury
Can't punish them for being religious zealots, "conservatives" etc.
However. giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists, i.e. Thomas, colluding with parties appearing before them, i.e. Alito, may be criminal.
Yes, and oooh, I think Alito may well be criminal. Can't believe how corrupt this Supreme Court is!!
Claire, the sad thing is that when corrupt people are voted into office, one can expect that they will nominate and appoint corrupt people for as many offices as possible. Just look at the train of appalling people Trump and his senate put into office over his 4 years and the corrupt fools that still cling to him hoping to reap the benefit of Trump's deep and broad corruption. It's awful!
I keep asking this; “If Merrick Garland states no man is above the law, and Thomas and his fellow conservatives are giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists, are they not guilty of breaking the law? Does the DOJ have an obligation to investigate them? If they have been found guilty of this crime, is it not the duty of The DOJ to indict them? It seem clear cut to me who holds sway over the behaviors of the men and women who have sworn oaths to uphold the law. Not decide law, mind you, only interpret it on an appeals basis. As they sit now, they’re no court, only an extension of the radical right. With their support of the radical right ideals and personal preferences not Constitutional guarantees afforded to all Americans, their illegal practice of leaking decisions in favor of religious beliefs unpopular with 70% of Americans ( both republican and democrat) there needs to be more than one route to negate this extension of a corrupt legislature.
Yes Indeed and we should be wary of the practice of anybody trying to impose ANY Draconian religeous doctrine on all of our diverse citizenry.
We can only hope!
who can bring charges? the DOJ bringing charges seems wildly implausible.and trial in the Senate is out of the question
Yes, Steve, Republicans will defend the corrupt inappropriate people they got into office to the bitter end and block anyone who tries to intervene to bring about some kind of justice. They all knew both impeachments of Trump proved his guilt, but just couldn't bring themselves to do the right thing. That does not say much for the quality of person that now inhabits the Republican party. Everyone needs to beware.
.we need to make people aware by reaching a wider audience.
Martha Hoag: A Senate investigation, (if it's a thing), could shed light on her and others on the court, who have shown considerable hostility to the Constitution and, received gifts in a very dishonorable and, I would guess illegal way, could be investigated too. They all should be. So it is lengthy and 'divisive'. Justice delayed is justice denied, but it should be investigated and punished! We are all going to hell, in case many have not noticed! We need to stop this criminality at the very top of our Union!
Nice Rant, Laurie ! I like it !
Rebekha Simms; Sometimes it helps to get it out of my system!
Descended from a 'persecuted' Scottish ancestry + having had ancestors 'hung as witches in' about 1690 in salem MA' I totally agree. For what if honest anger is not honestly vented (?) It can become - violent retribution - (?) Maybe (?)
Agreed, Roger. The older I get, the more my Czech half comes out. The U.S. is due a "Velvet Revolution," methinks.
I know time is short but the Democrats need to push through enough Justices to balance the court before they loose the chance to!
I’ll tell you something else, Laurie. Adam Schiff has an op-ed in the New York Times reminding us not to forget the members of Congress who enabled the insurrection. I don’t think any of this is over.
Paula B. ; Yes; I believe it. I have thought that ever since it was reported that so many in Congress voted against certifying President Biden's win.
Oh, Laurie, you have called this correctly. No matter how long it takes, the corruption needs to be investigated. Then, the FBI for not investigating Kavanaugh before his Senate hearing, which he lied at, of course. Everything the Supreme Court conservatives rule on needs to be held suspect. The fact that Thomas who has a questionable connection to the insurgents is bringing up taking away the rights of human beings in this country related to reproductive freedom is a real problem which Congress should have addressed this term since the Republicans will be taking over the House and will do nothing to help anyone but themselves. I hope the Senate can stop their toddler behavior, but we'll see when those same Republicans start holding our nation hostage to their toddler demands.
Martha, you are right, and I think Ms. Ginny Thomas and her handlers knew well what they were doing, and that Clarence T. couldn't do anything about it. They had essentially bought a Supreme Court justice and got a right-wing fanatic in the bargain. I guess it was for them a big win and for the rest of us, something far less.
Her emails are already part of the public record, so her ability to give perjured testimony is limited. The problem has to do with whether or not they discussed her actions and whether that discussion affected his lone dissent. The person who would be in the most legal jeopardy for the Justice not his wife. The question is will he support her lie or will the other justices put the integrity of the court above the desires of one man.
Angela, I suspect it won't matter what Thomas actually does because there are 5 justices to protect Trump and Kump. There is little to no integrity among the conservative justices. Heck! They went along with Alito's insane defense of getting rid of Roe v. Wade. They must have known his logic and legal supports were full of holes and if carried to their final point, the 6 agreed with Alito that women are not covered by our Constitution so state legislators can do whatever they choose to us. This case was about abortion and reproductive rights but birth control is coming as are sure to be other misogynistic cases. I trust none of the 6 when it comes to integrity and caring about the American people. They answer to a crew of white religious fanatics, so be sure that whatever those guys want, the 6 will bow to. No one will care one bit that Ginny Thomas is an insurrectionist, that is, no one in judicial power. So much for John Roberts. He's the ringleader. No integrity there!
Unfortunately the views you express are quite common and justified. The interesting thing about them is that SCOTUS has no enforcement power. They can rule on whatever they choose but they cannont enforce anything they decide. They left abortion decisions up to the states and the majority said no thanks- we have no intention of limiting women's freedom of choiced. John Lennon asked, "what if they gave a war and nobody came?" Now the court is about to find out what happens when they issue rulings that the majority of the American people refuse to obey. It took the Federal Government to send troops to force the Southern states to admit black children to schools that were previously segregated. When the troops left, segregation reappeared. There is no way that Biden will order anyone in his administration to enforce any abortion or birth control bans. The court pleased a few fanatics but even red states, have resisted their attempts to take away women's freedom to choose. See the results of the referendums where abortion was on the ballot or the candidate was a committed right to life fanatic. Alito and Thomas sacrificed the court's integrity for nothing and now it grows ever more likely that there will be changes on the way the court functions, with term limits for appointees as the least disruptive proposal up to and including expanding the number of justices on the court.
Angela, excellent points! I hope more states will start to see the insanity of making women second-class citizens. When a bunch of mediocre conservative justices and judges are put out to play with no supervision (term limits for example), they will bring out their biases, prejudices, and ignorance. This gang of 6 SC conservatives just don't care, though. Already in Texas a charge against a woman seeking an abortion was dismissed. It would be great if that happened everywhere, making the anti-Roe v. Wade ruling irrelevant. I would hope the SC conservatives would learn from the election results, but they are trying hard to earn their Heaven points, and those points exclude rights for women. Even Barrett is into denying women rights. That is just crazy, but fits with why she was nominated in the first place.
It is prehistoric, corrupt and self serving, that the Supreme Court injustices- who we did not vote for -are allowed to serve life time appointments??
That must be changed, especially because they have the power, the final decision, the final word in all decision making , and allowed to over turn any vital political issues When, How has our country allowed a King to reign over us ?
There is no Justice, Just
Us ..😖😠
@Kate. Lifetime appointments are in the Constitution, Article III. For practical reasons there is no chance of an amendment to this to be passed. It's funny though, because this bunch of crazies might rule that Article III doesn't matter just so Republicans could attack sensible, balanced judges all the way down the system! LOL
Benjamin, yep, this court of crazies could try something like negating the Constitution, or parts of it. Their oaths clearly mean nothing to them, even sworn on a Bible, and they claim to be committed Christians (that's a laugh). They even go to Medieval and 17th century made-up laws to make their stupid, but very harmful decisions. That is exactly what the Federalist Society was hoping would happen. They love being the "power behind the throne" and we are not supposed to have a king. Our court has taken powers the Constitution did not actually give it. They should never have a final say on anything. There are supposed to be 3 co-equal branches of government, not two lower branches and a court that can do whatever it wants. They clearly loved slavery in the past and are OK with a bunch of non-white, non-male people being considered second-class citizens and allowing states to make up all kinds of voting restrictions when our Constitution says that every citizen 18 years and older has the right to vote. So when those restrictions are OKed by the SC, they are going against the Constitution. They don't seem to have a problem with that at all. Now, today, the SC out of nowhere has ruled that protesters at health centers have the right to protest wherever they want because it is their first amendment right. However, protesters are not allowed to protest at the Supreme Court and other places that non-right-wing folks might want their voices heard. The non-right-wingers get arrested while those who intimidate women going for health care are, short of actually hurting someone, allowed to do whatever with impunity. Yep, the SC is out of control and needs to be reined in.
Hmm. Who was it just recently wanted to turn over the Constitution of our once United States because he still believes( or really only pretends to use for his current platform)
I’ll give you a hint:
Our previous dictator , DT.
It appears that many of his previous at staunch prior Repugnant minions are now jumping ship, eating each other up. 😳
Perhaps if you go online and order some of his new $99 super hero trading cards you can help him get out of all of his legal fees, and he can also use the proceeds to build another one of his Trump towers
And this needs to be changed immediately or the Supreme Court is of no use to Justice at all!
Angela moving; or a grand jury investigation can compel testimony.
Ginni Thomas is typically referred to as a “conservative activist,” which is incorrect.
She is a political OPERATIVE and consultant, paid very handsomely, in no small part because of who her husband is, and she, not her husband, is the major breadwinner in that family.
And, like almost all married couples, their finances are commingled. What she earns he banks, and spends and vice versa.
As such, even when Ginni Thomas is not promoting or influencing matters that are or will be before the Supreme Court, there is nothing on her plate that, by virtue of financial interest, does not potentially influence the vote of her husband on the Court (I’d add that it influences the questions he asks of lawyers during oral arguments, but he’s more silent than — as the Lina Lamont character in the great musical comedy “Singin’ in the Rain” puts it so memorably, “Calvin Coolidge, put t’gither!”).
Yes, because of this glaring conflict of interest Clarence Thomas should resign from the court or, in the absence of retirement, recuse himself from any case in which his wife has taken as much as a nickel for promoting the conservatives’ cause. At the very least, every 5-4 case ever argued during Clarence Thomas’s decades on the court in which he was part of the majority needs to be re-litigated., because their outcomes, each and every one of them, smell like week-old fish.
Abe Fortas was forced to resign in 1969 after accepting $20,000 from financier Louis Wolfson while Wolfson was being investigated for insider trading. He was pressured into resigning by Nixon's AG, John Mitchell (later convicted), and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist as a way to pack the court.
Anthony Kennedy was likely pressured into retiring by 45 over issues with Kennedy's son's conduct at Deutsche Bank in giving loans to 45's organizations. Another example of using pressure to pack the court?
It seems odd that current glaring issues do not seem to be worthy of outrage or even of note or a reason for action.
A direct bribe or transfer of money or some other item of value in implied consideration of actions in office is obviously both easier to prove and use a leverage to effect something such as the resignation of any sitting federal official.
While the presumed commingling Thomases’ finances is, in a general sense, in plain sight, there is no direct cause and effect that anyone, from a prosecutor to the press, can force a justice into a position of such irredeemable illegitimacy that he must resign.
From a criminal law point of view, yes. Lawyers and judges, however, are actually held to higher standards than just criminal liability or neglect. Even the appearance of impropriety is seen as an issue.
As ABA's Model Rules of Judicial Conduct, Rule 1.2, states:
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
The comments to the rule are even more illustrative (especially [5]):
[1] Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct and conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety. This principle applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge.
[2] A judge should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the restrictions imposed by the Code.
[3] Conduct that compromises or appears to compromise the independence, integrity, and impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary. Because it is not practicable to list all such conduct, the Rule is necessarily cast in general terms.
[4] Judges should participate in activities that promote ethical conduct among judges and lawyers, support professionalism within the judiciary and the legal profession, and promote access to justice for all.
[5] Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules or provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.
[6] A judge should initiate and participate in community outreach activities for the purpose of promoting public understanding of and confidence in the administration of justice. In conducting such activities, the judge must act in a manner consistent with this Code.
Dr. Doug : Thanks for your marvalously Informative Post. I found this the be most revealing in reguard to ethics in the governance of judicial behavior of the judicial system at large and the Supreem Count in particular. Verypowerful information indeed ! !
Charges of impropriety are filed internally against judges frequently. Doesn't have to be filed by a party. But they will not be considered without hard evidence.
The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980(link is external), 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364, establishes a process by which any person can file a complaint alleging a federal judge has engaged in “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” or has become, by reason of a mental or physical disability, “unable to discharge all the duties” of the judicial office.
Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (pdf),
Maybe Thomas can be disbarred?
Very rarely happens with judges. There is a bit of a double standard.
In Colorado we had a fairly public issue with one federal judge who had some rather severe issues that came to light with visits to a gentlemen's club. The issues were seen to materially impact his performance.
He was pressured to resign from the bench and then went back home and re-opened a law practice. An attorney might have been suspended or disbarred in a similar situation.
Collateral attack happens.
Internally all judges except SCOTUS are bound by a judicial code of conduct. https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
Some judges, including Trump's sister Maryanne, resign when faced with an investigation.
I was not an Article III judge, but all live in a fishbowl. Most judges are subject to a form of peer review at a level before censure or sanctions. https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-conduct-disability
Published advisory opinions. https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/judiciary-policies/ethics-policies/published-advisory-opinions
True Avie, he can’t be forced to resign or retire, but he can be impeached.
Another tidbit about Ginni Thomas, she earned a law degree but it appears she never passed the bar exam, she failed it once, for sure, and she never practiced law.....a bitter gadfly, trouble maker who couldn't join the legal profession.
Passing the bar is only a first step.
Bring admitted to a bar requires compliance with ethics rules and reporting. And then there is the other regulator--the malpractice insurers.
There is a significant difference between a law degree and being a member of the bar.
Interesting slant to the conversation: citizen malpractice insurance against horrible judges!
The right wing SC does not care. They are bought. I heard and maybe you can confirm 3 of them were lawyers in Florida 2000 Gore/Bush trying to stop the vote. The 4th person was Marco Rubio. Break the law , get a promotion. It’s simple math. Tragic. Yes OUT Thomas. Sadly they are so insulated and we are not organized to derail their momentum.
This post trump era is revealing so many areas where accountability is neither enforced or even considered - depending on who you are. We need to get Democrats in control of all 3 branches so we can right the wrongs, provide clear and undisputable laws/guidelines, and itemize what happens to those who find a way around our Constitution and laws.
Thomas was quoted in an article as saying, "The liberals have made my life hell for 20 years and now I'm going to make their lives hell" Sen Whitehouse has written a letter to the chief asking him to designate someone to testify before his Senate committee. No response. Whitehouse is fed up with this SuCt. See his books CAPTURED and THE SCHEME. The six on the court have lost the respect of the legal community and, indeed, lay citizens as well. Because the selection SOP is political, we too often get less than sterling legal minds; instead, we get party apparatchiks. The way Alaska selects its judiciary is contrary and it gets the best legal minds the state has to offer. See THE CASE AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT, by Chemerinsky; look in index under Alaska. There appears to be no hope for the court until the SOP is drastically changed. As for Thomas, he seems "twisted" in the sense that he appears to be against all the societal aspects that made it possible for him to advance career-wise; and, justice seems to be the least thing he thinks about. The Trump legal battle that looms gives one the "willies" when thinking of it going to this court. Still, the light that will be shown on the harmful irregularities, their number and magnitude, by the legal proceedings will have the beneficial effect we "all" desire; one can only hope.
If that Thomas quote is true, holy crap . . . he really has personalized his rulings, it would seem.
28 U.S. Code § 455 is a law without enforcement or a penalty. There are too many of these laws on the books. Despite that, any and all pressure should be brought to bear to check current behavior.
The current situation illustrates the need for a disciplined, long-term effort to bring the Federal court system into its proper place in a 21st Century democracy. The Supreme Court, in particular, is a relic of the colonial era and 18th Century England. It may have been the best we could do in the 18th Century but a modern democracy demands more.
As Sheldon Whithouse has noted, building awareness by pulling back the curtains and letting a bit of sunlight in, is needed. From there, much can and should be done including making the court a suitable size for a large country (e.g. Germany with two panels of 8 members), introducing term limits, and developing an ethics system with enforcement. Even the internal debate rules with serial case debates from most tenured (Thomas) to least (Jackson) are woefully out of date.
One would hope that a Chief Justice, who is a guardian of the institution, would be the first to drive for modernization and transparency. Sadly, that is not what we are seeing.
Sorry but for every right there is a remedy. Judges have been penalized under this statute. The problem has been that nobody is willing to challenge SCOTUS.
Part of the problem at SCOTUS is that lawyers are afraid to challenge the justices for bias. "Party bias" is not generally an acceptable basis for recusal. Need hard evidence. I did see that at one time some environmental groups had alleged bias, but that was years ago and they obviously did not make a record, which I think is essential. Generally when apparent improprieties are alleged, judges on the record address them.
I was an ABA officer and worked on the ABA model judicial code and the problem of peer review. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/ I once was on the ABA Judicial Conference. That was years ago. Check this out. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/putting-scientific-peer-review-in-the-courtroom/
SCOTUS wouldn't cooperate.
From Judicial Conference advisory opinions -- procedure. See nos 69 and 71.
https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/judiciary-policies/ethics-policies/published-advisory-opinions
Personally, I think this is the most serious & immediate problem we have. The conservative majority on the Supreme Crt. has been bought & they have no shame. They are poised to rule in a manner that will cause catastrophic harm to our democracy.
We have three equal branches of govt. The purpose of having three equal branches is so they can act as checks on each other if one branch goes rogue. What we have now is a Supreme Crt. (for the 1st time in our history) majority colluding with seditious members of the legislative branch to fundamentally alter how Americans are governed as well as how we live.
RR suggests Chief Justice Roberts should publicly state that Justice Thomas must recuse himself from cases having to do with the 2020 election because his wife was intimately involved with republicans who planned and attempted to overthrow our government. But, I think if Chief Justice Roberts was inclined to do that he would have already done it. Which, by the way says a great deal about how he views the situation.
But, wait--there’s a federal law requiring any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the U.S. to disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Notice it says “might reasonably be questioned.” It doesn’t say there needs to be proof of a conflict of interest. Since in actuality Justice Thomas has already violated that law, the Dept. of Justice could convene a Grand Jury to to hear evidence to that effect and recommend charging Thomas with a crime. Considering DOJ’s reluctance to pursue a former president for conspiring to overthrow our govt. by a violent insurrection to keep himself in power, I doubt the DOJ is interested in doing that. (Why DOJ wouldn’t be interested is another question for another day.)
Another alternative is for the senate to hold public hearings on Justice Thomas’ alleged violation of the law & consider whether or not he in fact violated it.
It seems to me if the senate were to do something like that they should go all the way down that road and impeach him.
Here’s the thing, trust in the U.S. Supreme Court is currently extremely low. The reason is because the Court’s conservative majority has been co-opted by a political process that has in turn resulted in a loss of the Court’s legitimacy as an independent branch of our government. If the American public doesn’t believe the Court is legitimate, the Rule of Law also loses legitimacy and that’s a problem so over-whelming it can’t be dealt with here. There’s one other alternative RR didn’t mention, and that’s to expand the Court by 4 more justices.
Expansion of the Supreme Court by 4 justices would restore its legitimacy. Currently, what we have is a bare majority of a handful of unaccountable, unelected justices who became justices because one party blatantly refused to follow two-hundred fifty year old norms, which had never before been done. Even worse, they did it in order to promote a radical ideology extremist politicians wanted that’s unequivocally against the best interests of the majority of Americans.
Adding 4 seats would bring the size of the Court into alignment with the number of circuit courts, which is historically pertinent in the history of Supreme Court expansion. Today, there are 13 circuit courts, so it makes perfect sense to follow precedent and set the number of justices at 13. As RR said, “The point of the federal law governing judicial conflicts of interest is to preserve the public’s trust in our legal system by eliminating even the appearance of partiality.” The sooner this is addressed, the better it will be.
Impeachment of any Supreme Court judge is not going to happen.Despite that it could be worthwhile for the Senate to hold some hearings as a way of reaching a broader public on the threat. They have to choose their battles however.
I agree Steve & Jan. Impeachment would be an appropriate remedy, but it’s unlikely considering the state of things right now. I think the worst thing would be to do nothing, because doing nothing would be like playing Russian roulette with a conservative majority that has already created havoc with their ruling on abortion. Expanding the Court by 4 Justices makes the most sense. It doesn’t require a formal investigation of wrongdoing but it takes care of a very serious problem and as I said, it would mean there’s one Justice for each of the 13 circuits which is a necessary change anyway.
I'm all for expansion of the Court, it just seems like we can't get there.More and more I think it's going to be some outside force that causes change unless we have a collapse largely brought on by internal forces .it's just hard to see how step-by-step progress toward democratization is going to happen. Fortunately, the world is richer than my imagination.
Just a quick note : We entered this slippery slope before without consideration for the potential consequencis of such . . . whichs brought us to where we currently are.
The Supremes have given themselves the privilege to not prosecute family members. Ginny under this statute would not have to testify. Clarence Thomas is a crook. Why are judges taking money from lobbyists? Is everything for sale? Well I was raised to respect people and their beliefs. Justice Roberts is not in charge of anything. I have never seen so much corruption in our Courts. Get rid of Filibuster, Citizens United, Gerrymandering. And the damn Electoral College is the worst of all voter suppression. The Republicans are the not able to win unless they cheat. Our elections have been rigged for decades. All you need to do is cheat. Bull sugar! Until we can stop the madness of the MAGA we will never be free.
I feel your Pain. Resist the Fear !
They bought 6 justices. Roberts and Kavanaugh were the Point Counsel for the FL mess in 2000, Gorsuch's Mom wrecked the EPA, and Thomas + Alito are terrifyingly corrupt monetarily. This has been a 50 year plan. And it worked - because most Democrats only vote for President and are literally asleep. Watch Fox for 30 minutes - you will come away terrified. If we are thinking it's only Thomas, we haven't paid attention. Reagan was the "original Trump". An ugly racist, anti-semite and misogynist. Educate yourself on Iran-Contra - your head will explode.
I am a college professor currently, but I was an Economist for a money center bank for 20 years. I assign my students this substack.
Blame Democrats (we have such thick skin!) - no differently than a fireman who tries to save your house or a police officer who tries to break up a violent riot (they had their prints on it last, didn't they?).
PS: Just kidding - the educators are to blame (who else would teach children to expect better?)...
> = /
It is so frustrating that the entire system seems so dysfunctional
The issue in the Moore case - and the fact Judge Thomas is unlikely to recuse - is further reason for the Special Counsel to include Ginni Thomas as a co-conspirator with Trump and the rest of those - including several sitting members of Congress - who conspired to overthrow our 2020 presidential election. If my memory serves me correct, the way Abe Fortas, many years ago, was "convinced" to resign from the court was because of an issue regarding his wife. Maybe this would be the way to get Thomas to resign - some kind of "deal" regarding his wife. The reality in America is the Supreme Court has been turning this nation to the "right" for, at least, since the Bush v Gore decision deciding the 2000 election. A decision which brought us Iraq and Afghanistan - two shameful "blots" on American history. That was followed by the "Citizens United" decision and then McConnell's preventing President Obama from putting Merrick Garland on the court. Still, democratic voters didn't feel the importance of Supreme Court Justices enough to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Hopefully, they now realize EVERY election going forward is CRITICAL if, for no other reason, than to prevent another right wing Justice being appointed by a republican president. Republicans have been focused for years on the Court AND the state legislatures for the very reason behind the upcoming Moore decision. It's unlikely the issue with Ginni Thomas will resolve itself by the time this decision comes down - but we KNOW how Judge Thomas is going to vote and we KNOW the court doesn't care enough about it's "poll numbers" to urge him to recuse. To me, this is clear evidence that the republican "slow motion" coup d'etat has been surreptitiously moving along out of "view" of our so-called "liberal media" for several decades. Trump might be fading away but the danger persists. And, for anyone who believes Ginni Thomas when she claims to "never" share her politics with her husband, well, I've got a .....................................
I don't know this as a fact, but Thomas' email account was allegedly used by his wife. If true, at a minimum, he is a material witness in the 1/6 case.
Also, despite what others may say, IMHO Roberts can censure and even sanction Thomas. Justices have an inherent contempt authority. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that federal courts possess inherent authority to punish contempt—i.e., disobedience of a court order or obstruction of justice—and to impose other sanctions on parties or attorneys who engage in misconduct. See United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 299 (1947).
Chief Justice Roberts has abdicated his role as Chief. Enough time has passed at this point that it should be assumed he has no intention of sanctioning or censuring Justice Thomas. I agree with David Hill that J.Roberts is too busy being “outraged” about other things. What he should have done and could have done was immediately give J. Thomas a choice to either recuse pending an investigation or retire.
I like the idea of including Ginni Thomas as a co-conspirator along with about 2 dozen members of Congress and making some kind of deal with Thomas to retire or watch his wife be prosecuted.
I also very strongly believe those in Congress who participated in planning the insurrection and who were foolish enough to support it after it failed, must be forced out of Congress pursuant to Sec. 3 of the 14th amendment. It should be fairly simple to produce evidence of their participation and by so doing they ipso facto must depart. They could be given the same choice--leave Congress pursuant to the 14th amendment or be prosecuted for Conspiracy.
It should be kept in mind at all times that these people believe they have a mission to fulfill. Chastising them for their illegal behavior isn’t going to stop them from continuing to pursue their mission. They’re not in Congress to work on behalf of the American people, they’re in Congress to force us to give up our rights granted by the Constitution and submit to tyranny so they can establish a national religion, among other things.
And let’s not forget these republicans knowingly enlisted the help of white nationalists as well as evangelicals to to accomplish their goals. I don’t know this for a fact, but there are signs that white nationalists/supremacists are scattered throughout our government and our military, including elite intel agencies.
According to Politico, the Justice Department has arrested more than 850 Capitol riot suspects and more than 325 of them have pleaded guilty. But I worry that there are thousands more biding their time, practicing military drills until the next attempt to overthrow our government and that’s precisely why the govt. needs to aggressively demonstrate that no quarter will be given to participants whether they’re in Congress or elsewhere.
I concur wholeheartedly.
can you imagine what would happen to these rioters if they had stormed the Kremlin?
Clearly the events of 8/23/2020 in Belarus proved not to be a deterrent (it seems Lukashenko in the streets with his assault rifle was, if anything, an incentive to go looking at the source for their benefits)...
Nicely put, and I (we) can hope you're right about Roberts and that he'll care enough about the image this Court is creating to "do the right thing." (That said, remembering Roberts was key to the Citizen's United blasphemy)
I've given up hoping on Roberts to do the right thing.
Roberts seems too busy being "outraged" over media leaks of pending draconian and unpopular decisions by his justices, probably done at least indirectly by the justices themselves who can't contain their glee that they get to legally assert their Christian Dominionism on the rest of us, to do the right and just thing with Justice Thomas.
We (Americans) are no more ready to hold Clarence Thomas accountable today as we were when Anita Hill accused him of sexual harassment, when Congress pulled a high tech lynching on her. On the other hand, we're also not ready to see a SCOTUS that does not favor male privilege. Comments? ~RD
That was what...about 40 years ago. As President Obama once said referring to himself, he’s ‘evolved.’
President Biden has demonstrated many times over that he has evolved as well.
Actually, thirty years ago - but it was really the public that evolved (as no one in their right mind ever thought about risking harassment in the workplace so overtly ever again!)...
Agree, agree, agree...
His partisan actions, political involvement in the Court, acceptance of gratuities, speaking at far right orgs gatherings, refusal to recuse himself, and he and his wife’s connections with Jan 6th should be placed in Articles of Impeachment.
But, right away, Congress needs to enact rules of Conduct for SCOTUS, subject to findings of malfeasance for jurors violating these standards. And stack the Court.
I agree, and J.Thomas isn’t the only justice doing those things. J. Kavanaugh was recently photographed partying with known white supremacist Stephen Miller. That’s terrifying in light of the recent uptick of antisemitism, erosion of civil rights, and increase in police executions of black people who are minding their own business.
Ma'am - the vaccines we have work very well. You need to get boosters, but they work 95% efficacy. The treatments change as the virus mutates, but most of the treatments are incredibly effective. You need to get them from a Doctor. You are very wrong about this, scientifically, as many people with more medical experience than I have (married to a Dr).
You are not my "moral compass" - I'm 58 years old, and I don't need your help. Both sides do NOT do it. The Democrats are very different than the GQP. Watch 3 nights of MSNBC - you will learn lots of amazing things.