I HAVE FOUND A WAY FOR CONGRESS TO IMPEACH CLARENCE THOMAS!

[redstate_democrat]

After studying the renowned legal texts of renowned legal source, Wikipedia (greatest internet invention of all times), I have found a way for Congress to impeach that know nothing Clarence Thomas off the bench.

Clarence Thomas has demonstrated his incompetence and utter unsuitability to serve on the United States Supreme Court. For one, he lied during his confirmation hearings about never reading Roe v. Wade. Although the statute of limitations has run out on this claim, his continued existence brings "disrepute to the federal bench". Furthermore, narrow and often-times child-like interpretation of the U.S. Constitution demonstrates his incompetence to serve on the court. His submitting the birth-certificate issue to the full panel for review this Friday, after it has originally been dismissed, is further proof of his incompetence and extreme political partisianship for someone who is duty-bound to uphold the Constitution and act as a neutral arbiter.

This man is not suited to serve on ANY court, let alone the Supreme Court.

Therefore, the Congress should impeach him. He has brought "disrepute to the federal bench". Federal judges have been impeached for this same offense, in one case, a judge was impeached for being mean to lawyers that came before him. In another case, a judge was impeached for accepting free meals and lodging at a receivership conference. In both cases, the judges were impeached for "disrepute to the federal bench".

Disrepute means...damage, loss of reputation, discredit. Surely Clarence Thomas' actions in this immediate matter of the birth certificate issue has brought a loss of reputation and discredit to the Supreme Court because the accusation is so stupid, so clearly politically motivated, the court should and is now seen as a farce.

If Congress were to impeach Clarence Thomas, the issue would not be reviewable by the Courts. Thanks to DUer Land Shark for providing an article that went over this. I went on Wiki and looked up the case of Nixon v United States which stated that impeachments were political questions that could not be reviewed by the court. Clarence Thomas agreed with this decision in joining with the majority of the court. So Clarence Thomas wouldn't have a leg to stand on if Congress decided to impeach him for this dishonorable act of bringing "disrepute to the court".

Brave New Films are some entity should start a petition to impeach Clarence Thomas from the Supreme Court. I would sign it in a heartbeat.

[Tarc]

1. Pie in the Sky gibberish

I'd rather we focus energies on more productive means on moving a progressive agenda forward. Trying to pick off people we don't like on ideological grounds...as odious as Thomas' may be...is simply absurd.

[redstate_democrat]

3. First of all, this is not clearly ideological grounds.

I didn't name one issue that I disagree with him on as reason he should be removed. I am talking about his ACTIONS. His actions are what is at issue, not his beliefs.

[Dreamer Tatum]

24. You're talking about your reaction to his actions

Do you really want the "I don't like him" theory to govern who gets to stay on the bench?

[wryter2000]

2. I hadn't heard he did that

Do you have a link? I'm not doubting you. I just want to read it.

Somehow, I doubt even Scalia will go along with this.

[redstate_democrat]

4. You hadn't heard he did what?

I don't know which part you're specifically referring to.

[wryter2000]

7. Thanks

I hadn't heard he was going to present it before the full court. I'm probably missing the obvious, but I'm just...:wow:

[redstate_democrat]

9. No, not to the full court for a decision.

He has presented it to the conference to decide if they will entertain the case. Souter dismissed the thing outright, but Thomas, being the highly partisan asshole he is, has submitted it to the conference for political reasons. There is NO reason this should even be considered. He has a personal vendetta against both Obama and Biden.

He has brought disrepute to the federal bench. He is a mangy disgrace.

[glowing]

5. Impeachment is an act of Congress.. Scalia wouldn't have anything to say

about the process... I'm sure it will never be done.. Have you seen the congress lately? They couldn't even stand up to Bush; someone most 5th graders could out think.

[redstate_democrat]

6. Congress should look at it.

I don't think people would be marching in the streets if Congress impeached Thomas. He just isn't that beloved. He's a top notch idiot for one. He says NOTHING on the bench and he takes the most asinine positions. But that is neither here nor there. It's his ACTIONS that have brought disrepute to the federal bench. If we had an illiterate alcoholic on the bench, would the Congress not be entitled to impeach?

I classify Clarence Thomas as a practical illiterate regarding the Constitution. His illiteracy has brought disrepute to the federal bench.

[drm604]

8. Good luck with that.

We can't even get Bush impeached for obviously impeachable actions.

[Zuni]

10. this is mind-numbingly stupid

seriously, I feel dumber having read it.

[redstate_democrat]

13. It was partly tongue in cheek.

So I believe you were stupid to begin with and this did nothing more than inflate your overconfident belief in your own intelligence.

[Zuni]

17. hey---I know I am an idiot

I do and say stupid shit all the dang time

[Richardo]

19. Sure - you say that NOW

[redstate_democrat]

21. lol

Yes because most seriously legal arguments begin with "renowned legal text of renowned legal source Wikipedia".

As I said, it was "partly" tongue in cheek, as I do believe that Thomas is an incompetent fool who should not serve on the court.

But, honestly, you can think whatever the hell you wish.

[EstimatedProphet]

20. Then you admit it was partly serious

Points to Zuni.

[redstate_democrat]

22. Um YES

He IS an incompetent FOOL. I don't think he should serve on the Supreme Court.

[Richardo]

14. So when are you going to post YOUR impeachment thread?

You're getting closer to the stupidity event horizon. :scared:

[Zuni]

15. hey

I have been calling for impeachment since July 2007. And I do so loudly, in all caps, on various internet message boards nearly every day.

[PeaceNikki]

23. But, have you signed various internet petitions? hmmmmmmmmmmmm?!?

THAT's how you get shit done.

[happychatter]

11. Anita would be a fine replacement - nt

[onenote]

12. uhh, Thomas' submission of the birth certificate case was standard scotus practice

If you want to be taken seriously when you make legal arguments, you might want to familiarize yourself with the law and, in particular, with Supreme Court practice.

I have absolutely no use for Thomas, but I also see no reason to stand by while DU becomes a vehicle for spreading misinformation, even about someone I abhor.

It is absolutely standard SCOTUS practice for a justice that receives a re-submitted application after that application has already been rejected to take the re-submitted application and submit it to the full court for resolution. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe one of the nation's leading SCOTUS scholars, and co-author of "Supreme Court Practice" - the most widely used treatise on the subject: "If the assigned Justice denies an application, then the application can be re-submitted to any other Justice...under modern practice, renewed applications usually are submitted to the entire Court for resolution."

http://www.appellate.net/docketreports/In_Chambers_Opinions_v2_scdr3_2004.pdf

[redstate_democrat]

16. Ah, yes.

This was partly tongue in cheek. If that wasn't absolutely apparent, then I guess we can chalk it up to the game. I absolutely do think Thomas is an incompetent asshole. However, I do understand that it is highly unlikely he would be impeached for being one, even if in my wildest dreams I think he should be.

I guess my reliance on the "renowned legal text of renowned Wikipedia" didn't make my intention clear.

[Dreamer Tatum]

25. Small tongue, big cheek

You look pretty serious to me. Methinks you'd be even more serious if no one piled on you.

[redstate_democrat]

26. Honestly who gives a fuck?

This is Clarence Thomas we're talking about. And yes, even if I was DEAD SERIOUS, it still wouldn't matter. You guys are a bunch of anal retentive geeks.

[rvablue]

18. I wouldn't sign it....do we really want to go down this road....please?!?! n/t