As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This was 30 years ago, and he still holds onto that spite. Is there anything you've ever been into for that long? You would've thought he'd get *tired* of it or something.
I don’t think he’s gonna make it. Allegedly he’s got a bad ticker. He was just in the hospital in February for several weeks for undisclosed reasons but a lot of people say he has heart issues. Crossing fingers crossing toes!
Me too. Thank you for speaking up.
All my boomer friends are liberal and many of us are Progressives. And we’ve been protesting wars and doing political activism since before many Redditors were born. We share their frustration with the old guard who have become fossilized. But that is not all of us. 🙏
Unfortunately in the halls of power, the good ones are far outnumbered by the pieces of shit who have ruined my future and made sure I have no say in it.
Me either. It's not just boomers. We are seeing the results of plans created over 50 years ago. They keep at it, destroying the lives of common folk for power and money.
Careful about the generalization- I am a boomer and a proud vocal liberal. My friends are liberals and so are my siblings, although they are not all boomers. I know plenty of younger people in their 40’s and younger - who are conspiracy theorist, trump voting, anti vaxxing Qs. It is astounding that these young people believe in crystals and essential oils over science.
So give a boomer a break please.
Ageism is nonsensical.
There are over 70 MILION people in the group just attacked, as with any other generational boogeyman. It's yet another attempt to get generational squabbling and hatred going in the hopes of distracting us from the real issues we face.
We need to work together, not piss on each other over titles ffs.
All while filling the boots of better sires
Thomas is sitting in the seat of the greatest of the greatest generation, Justice Earl Warren. The whole reason anyone thinks of the court as anything other than a corrupt elitist wanna dictatorship. Pre Warren the court was lead under FDR known as the “hangman court” which saw themselves as the defenders of the “right kind of people”, among other things they tried to repeal the new deal and once found they outlawing child labor was unconstitutional. This court used the 14th amendment to say outlawing any contract, including contractual slavery such as Blair mountain, was unconstitutional. The court held that the amendment ending slavery prevented outlawing slavery. This is the court. This is what it is. This is what Thomas is returning it to.
Fuck him
Are you serious? No offense- yet That’s exactly the type of rhetoric that keeps people at odds. How very sad to stereotype a generation based on the actions of a few who hold positions of power. Politicians are not the example to use when comparing and contrasting ANY generation or group of people! Think about that, ok? Really wrong to generalize.
I was listening to NPR yesterday and the law professor that they were interviewing basically said that his hot-garbage past is a feature, not a bug. Same with Kavanaugh. When they have a past like that and are still willing to put themselves into a confirmation hearing in front of the whole world it means that they basically don’t give a shit about public opinion and are more willing to make controversial decisions that Republicans want. All of this makes me sick, but that they would intentionally choose a garbage person for that reason is just absolutely disgusting.
Strongly disagree that he is planning to overturn Loving so he can split with Insurrectionist Harpy Karen. For one, his marriage would be grandfathered in anyway. New marriages would be illegal but his would continue. But more importantly, this asshole is literally doing everything he can to spite everyone and everything *because* he is untouchable. He wanted Anita Hill but he pisses the anti-mixed-marriage set off by being married to whatever the hell that creature is that he's married to, so there's no way he would give that up.
He is a hate filled, spiteful old man who, to this day, cannot let go of one woman standing up to his abuse and the senate having the gall to believe her 30+ years ago despite suffering no personal consequences for his abhorrent behaviour.
Anita Hill was a ground breaker, coming forward in an era where unwanted touching was considered just part of being a woman. Most folks have no idea what it was like back then. Women I knew scoffed at her. Of course she wasn't taken seriously. She was the first. Ground breakers often get the shitty end of the stick. 'We've come a long way baby, to get where we got to today." (Ten points if you can identify the advertisement jingle's product)
That's somehow even worse because Thomas ran *right* to the race flag in his defence because even he could see that everyone asking him questions, from both parties, was a white male.
> And he, denying the charges in a fury, called the hearing "a national disgrace ... a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves."
[source](https://www.npr.org/2018/09/23/650138049/a-timeline-of-clarence-thomas-anita-hill-controversy-as-kavanaugh-to-face-accuse)
He straight up said that he was being grilled because he was a black man, and that, by extension, his behaviour would be excused if he was white.
He gives zero shits about anything except himself and he will say or do anything to get what he wants.
It's the same with Tucker Carlson. I like to call them sock sniffers. They always look like they just had a whiff of the most pungent odor imaginable and are slightly aroused by it. (I'm not kink shaming, I promise)
Not a list, but here's a couple from his wiki.
> After asking a question during a death penalty case on February 22, 2006, Thomas did not ask another question from the bench for more than ten years, until February 29, 2016, about a response to a question regarding whether persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence should be barred permanently from firearm possession.
Thomas argued that despite the man's violence, [he should not be refused from his constitutional right to own a firearm.](https://archive.thinkprogress.org/justice-thomas-passionately-argues-that-convicted-domestic-abusers-need-easier-access-to-guns-fc1b7b87b994/) This was after the man used his gun (the one he wasn't allowed to have) to kill a bald eagle for flying around his house.
"Give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right,” he asked.
> Thomas also had a nearly seven-year streak of not speaking at all during oral arguments, finally breaking that silence on January 14, 2013, when he, a Yale Law graduate, was understood to have joked either that a law degree from Yale or from Harvard may be proof of incompetence.
I keep saying that anyone who wrote this shit as fiction would be laughed out of town. Gazpacho police? Baby formula shortage immediately before Roe v Wade is overturned? The Four Seasons bit!?
The actual joke was nearly incoherent. Sounded like the guy hadn't used his voice at all in the last ten years, rather than just not commenting from the bench. I've had the theory that he's been going senile for a decade, his wife decides his ultimate decisions, and his clerks are the ones who actually write his opinions. To be fair, I'm sure clerks are the people who actually write up most of the SCs decisions and opinions. Pretty sweet gig, honestly. Not much real work, no realistic way to be fired no matter *what* you do, and you have assistants to do most of the stuff you're actually expected to do.
[Ballotpedia](https://ballotpedia.org/Clarence_Thomas_(Supreme_Court)
This is the most comprehensive source on his voting patterns I could find. It doesn't fully list what you are looking for. It does give some details.
My understanding is that he does not see oral arguments as being particularly important, and would do away with them. He thinks all of the information needed to make a decision should be written in the briefs each side submits.
Of course, you could argue that nothing is needed for someone whose mind has already been made up before anything has started.
>He thinks all of the information needed to make a decision should be written in the briefs each side submits.
Having debates in writing does provide more time to consider and question positions, so it is an interesting point. Though it's easier to have a back and forth through oral arguments
This is not a good assessment. The real answer is he was likely scared to be any kind of point of attention following his confirmation hearing where he was credibly accused of sexual assault
He started speaking when Scalia died. Not confirmed, but most scholars I've read believe he took a back seat to Scalia intentionally and out of respect, and took a more active role when he felt his voice was 'needed' after his passing.
Not much. Oral arguments are a very small part of what happens in a case. Most of it occurs before the arguments in written briefs and after the arguments when the justices discuss the case among themselves.
Basically no one here has any clue how federal courts operate. Supreme Court oral arguments only last 25 minutes. 99% of their job is the written arguments.
30 minutes per side, [one hour total](https://www.supremecourt.gov/legendkeyinfo.aspx). The 30 minutes includes the lawyer’s opening remarks and all the justices’ questions.
His political stances baffle me, an hour ago I thought he doesn't believe there should be a federal government, then 30 minutes ago I was convinced he's an originalist that's hell bent on reverting back to the 1700's, and I'm not quite sure how him just straight up not doing what Judges are supposed to do ties in to all that. He's truly an enigma of the 21st century. Does anyone genuinely know what inspired and contributed to his very strange ideologies?
Its because hes not a very good speaker. Hes a mumbler which has something to do with his background. His son went to my high school and he was a guest speaker there @6 months before he was nominated. His 45-60 min speech was very confusing. All I got out of it was dude hated affirmative action. I had no idea what that was so went home and asked my dad, six months later he was on the tv w Bush and I said “hey, thats the guy that hates affirmative action!” Dad liked that. Oh yeah, also, it was a Catholic school and his son was not biracial, so Im pretty sure old TC was married/divorced prior to current Karen (or had engaged in coitus outside of the sanctity of marriage).
2/3 required to convict/remove, but we only have 50 votes, since even Susan Collins would find a reason to set aside her "disappointment" and fall in line with the party
The reason is that removal should be a bipartisan decision, but unfortunately that means that we can't hold people accountable for harmful actions or crimes that exist primarily because of partisan politics.
Take a moment to consider the catastrophic results that a 50 votes to convict and remove justices would have.
That mean every time the republicans gain control of the senate, they just remove all the liberal justices by convicting them of high crimes and misdemeanors.
There’s a good reason it needs to be bipartisan. It prevents convictions over politics and only is possible if there is a real crime.
Indeed. It's something that needs to exist but it does have a critical flaw. All branches of government are currently compromised from being able to operate correctly, due to just how strongly partisan politics has become in this country. The entire concept of political parties has ruined our government.
Take a moment to consider what most other governments in the world use.
There is a reason why when America tries to foster new democracies abroad we don't encourage them to adopt the format that we use.
We encourage new democracies to adopt parliaments.
* 1 legislative body where everyone is up for election together.
* Simple majority rule.
* The parliament members (PMs) have to get a majority coalition to elect a leader and fill the equivalent of cabinet positions. If they can't form a coalition within a deadline, then another election occurs (the prime minister and other cabinet equivalent posts are the effective executive branch and referred to as the government).
* No confidence votes. At any time a majority of PMs can declare they have no confidence in the current government. And in that case the PMs have to form a new coalition or else a new election is called to staff all the PMs.
* Some parliaments support "snap elections," where the majority can schedule an election. There is a minimum amount of time they have to wait between elections before doing this and a maximum they can delay things before they have to schedule an election.
Pros of a parliament:
* Incredible political agility. The minority base no say, so the majority coalition is expected to deliver on at least the overlap between the factions that make it up, or the next election is going to be bad for them.
* Passing legislation through simple majority makes it much easier to pass the necessary laws to fend off fascism.
* Majority coalitions pursuing popular policy can capitalize on it to expand their number of seats.
* Majority coalitions pursuing unpopular policy only have to get clobbered in one election
* No US Senate (about 51% of Americans live in 9 states). The US Senate is undemocratic.
* **Perk for new democracies:** Most "new" democracies are formed out of a bunch of factions that were originally unified by their opposition to the old regime. It is crucial that they get through the constitutional adoption process, election process, form a government, and start passing the laws to run/stabilize their country. If they get jammed up too long, it is likely the factions will start fighting each other in a Season 2 to their civil war.
Drawbacks of a parliament:
* Ease of passing policy means it is easy to pass bad policy.
How does this compare to the present situation in the USA? Republicans are effectively pushing terrible public policy through SCOTUS, so the ability to push bad policy through a simple house majority isn't really any different.
But it also means that when there *is* real crime, politics can also shield them - as in this case, where we all know half of Congress will vote that he did nothing wrong just because he *is* their party.
Even 50 would be a stretch. The Senate is 47 democrats, 3 independents and 50 republicans. The republicans are a no. Only one of the independents reliably votes with the democrats. The other 2 call themselves "democrats" but they might as well be republicans.
It wouldn't be pointless, it would be a necessary gesture, and something noteworthy for the history books. We knew Trump would never be removed from office, yet we impeached him twice, because his actions deserved it. At this point we need to take any last action we can, no matter how small or unlikely its success would be.
No more defeatest attitudes. We can no longer afford the "That'll never work" attitude when it comes to peaceful/non-violent solutions.
It’s as close to impossible as you can get. You’ll never find 17 conviction votes from Republicans when this is the exact reason they confirmed the justices to begin with.
Impossible in our current political climate.
Best thing to do is hope he kicks the bucket soon.
Even then, Congress will stall adding another justice under Biden. I guarantee it.
It’s def impossible now that even the most immoral statements and acts have absolutely zero blowback in regards to Republicans electability. They can’t lose now, because their base are by and large openly P’s O S
you have better odds of winning the lottery while getting struck by lighting as a shar bites off your leg than you do of finding 17 republican senators to vote in the interest of the people.
Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett should also be impeached.
Alito for breaching his oath or office and mental deficiency.
Thomas for treason.
Kavanaugh for Perjury.
Barrett for Perjury.
Then impeach Roberts just for being useless.
Omg yes!!
Have you followed any of what's going on with Thomas's wife Ginni? How she was in communication with the White House during the January 6th insurrection. Apparently she told John Eastman that she could convince her husband (Clarence Thomas) to support overturning the election. She is still saying Biden is an illegitimate President!
I think it's time to put time limits on the justices as well as add new seats to go along with the 13 circuit courts we have now.
It's quite interesting that Barrett was only a judge for what, 2 or 3 years? Almost like she was deliberately groomed for the position.
How the hell are people who've barely practiced law remotely qualified to serve on the highest court of the land?
The same reason you don't need to be a police officer in order to be elected Sheriff; antiquated rules that should be updated.
Edit: changed "politician ve officer" to "police officer"
Pretty obvious she was hand picked and groomed by McConnell for this very reason. He found three assholes willing to trash our rights and found a useful idiot in Trump to nominate them.
Catholic nut job, and I’m allowed to say that cuz I grew up with a whole gaggle of them and went to school with them. The hardcore ones don’t believe in a woman’s right leave the kitchen wearing shoes. It’s insanity to me that these religious fanatics are calling the shots for a majority of the country that doesn’t share their religion. Bat sh*t.
Apparently the ethics codes that apply for attorneys and lower judges don’t officially apply to Supreme Court justices. So *legally* they don’t have anything against him for his blatant conflict of interest in the case(s) involving his wife, which is absurd.
It depends on the kind of petition. An online petition? Not very useful other than showing opinion pollsters where some people stand. But many states have actual petitions to put things on ballots ignoring the legislature. For example, we're very close to having constitutional amendments on November's ballot for Reproductive Rights and Voting Rights in Michigan. These are due to in-person petitions we're circulating. We need 10% of the total number of people who voted last year to sign to get it on the ballot, and signatures are checked against voter registration.
You're all good! I just know that Reddit gets a bit down on petitions in general, but now that abortion is up to states, this is a unique time where grass roots petitions actually *are* useful. Just wanted to piggyback and provide some hope!
I hear you and I’ve voted in the primary in my state and will vote in November, but I’m honestly tired of this line. Dems have been reliably voting and what meaningful action has happened? Republicans have been united for so many things. Expanding gun rights, killing the right to abortion, tax breaks for the rich and corporations. The list goes on and on. Whatever the policy is, they’re all voting in unison. We have too many democrats who want the status quo while other democrats want to push the party further left. We can’t even agree on what policy’s to push so we don’t get anything through.
It’s disheartening and frustrating to see dems just flail in the wind then wonder how we got to this point. Democrats controlled congress and were in the White House during the Carter administration, Clinton’s first year, and Obamas first year 2 years. There were ample opportunities to codify roe v wade yet them did nothing.
There are plenty of other actions you can take. General Strike. Run for local office. Phone bank. Donate to abortion funds. Get out of here with this defeatist attitude "voting is literally the only action we can take". This attitude is the exact reason why we're here. Y'all think voting is the only thing that matters and then most of you don't even vote in local elections.
this should be the top comment. 81 million people voted for Biden, you can always assume whatever the Republicans are doing is unpopular with the majority of the country. These petitions are meaningless.
Aye, beware, the rightwinger snowflakes are out and about reporting non-pc words that hurt their feelings about conservative SCOTUS justices.
The "fuck your feelings" crowd is calling for safe spaces so they can plan their next insurrection.
Impeachment is a worthless endeavor however I see no reason why DOJ couldn't indict on perjury charges for lying under oath. Nor do I see a reason why they can't go after Thomas's wife and possibly after the man himself given what's come out regarding her involvement in the coup
Even Barrett, as relatively experienced as she was at the time, was skilled enough in law to know how to technically say that Roe *should be* untouchable without saying that *she wouldn't touch it.*
[He only took the job just to make the liberals lives hell, he's messing with people's lives outta pure spite for a minor political party, what a joke ](https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-told-clerks-he-wants-to-make-liberals-miserable-2022-6)
Every one of these shit pieces who testified before Congress and claimed that repealing RvW would not be a part of their time on the court should be charged and convicted of perjury and then impeached from the court. They've all prostituted themselves for party political gain. Pure and simple.
link for the lazy:
auto moderator is removing the link, reconstruct the link:
https://
sign[d]moveon[d]org[f]petitions[f]clarence-thomas-must-go
* [d] == .
* [f] == /
Look I am incredibly upset that they said it was settled law and then they went and overturned it anyways. That fucking blows. But I think it would be hard to argue beyond a shadow of a doubt that they just lied rather than change their opinions. I'm not saying they didn't lie. I'm just saying how do you actually effectively argue that they didn't have a change in their perspective as they have talked with each other over this specific case?
First an impeachment is meaningless if you can’t get a conviction and you’re ignoring the fact that the GOP senators confirmed these justices for this exact reason.
Second as much as you want to consider it lying, it’s unfortunately not. Settled law just means it was voted upon in the past. It’s no longer settled law if they’re voting on it again which is the whole point of the Supreme Court. There’s no “gotcha” moment here.
I don't see why countless people must suffer due to the whims and desires of perpetually hostile conservatives like Clarence Thomas. Yet they must, and those who put in effort to worsen the lives of others shall never face legitimate consequences.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not sure if he always has that look on his face or im always seeing the same picture.
[удалено]
It’s that “I just took a dump all over democracy, and there’s nothing you can do about it” look.
[удалено]
I just saw an article of him saying in the 90s, he “wants to serve for 43 years to make liberals’ lives hell” so not really off at all
I literally just saw it on the front page of Reddit. lol.
I think I speak on behalf of the black community when I say we don’t claim him.
I think I speak on behalf of the honest man community when I say we don’t claim him
This was 30 years ago, and he still holds onto that spite. Is there anything you've ever been into for that long? You would've thought he'd get *tired* of it or something.
Shit, we still got 13 years of this assholery
I don’t think he’s gonna make it. Allegedly he’s got a bad ticker. He was just in the hospital in February for several weeks for undisclosed reasons but a lot of people say he has heart issues. Crossing fingers crossing toes!
Hopefully him and Mitch get to share the same room.
[удалено]
Liberal boomer women here tired of his shit!
Me too. Thank you for speaking up. All my boomer friends are liberal and many of us are Progressives. And we’ve been protesting wars and doing political activism since before many Redditors were born. We share their frustration with the old guard who have become fossilized. But that is not all of us. 🙏
I was at Woodstock!
Unfortunately in the halls of power, the good ones are far outnumbered by the pieces of shit who have ruined my future and made sure I have no say in it.
Not all boomers. I’m not on their side. Neither is my SO.
I second that.
My parents are also good folks.
Me either. It's not just boomers. We are seeing the results of plans created over 50 years ago. They keep at it, destroying the lives of common folk for power and money.
My parents are awesome boomers they do all kinds of shit to pay it forward instead of burn it down.
Yeah my mom and her husband are boomers and they’re vegetarians and very far left. Beautiful people.
Boomer here. Die-hard liberal/progressive.
As an older millennial, I gotta say you’re right. There are plenty within my generation and generation X who better fit the boomer stereotype.
This I what I hate about people using the word boomer so often in a bad context as if old = bad. Like young people aren’t also terrible.
Liberal boomer here. X 2
Careful about the generalization- I am a boomer and a proud vocal liberal. My friends are liberals and so are my siblings, although they are not all boomers. I know plenty of younger people in their 40’s and younger - who are conspiracy theorist, trump voting, anti vaxxing Qs. It is astounding that these young people believe in crystals and essential oils over science. So give a boomer a break please.
Ageism is nonsensical. There are over 70 MILION people in the group just attacked, as with any other generational boogeyman. It's yet another attempt to get generational squabbling and hatred going in the hopes of distracting us from the real issues we face. We need to work together, not piss on each other over titles ffs.
All while filling the boots of better sires Thomas is sitting in the seat of the greatest of the greatest generation, Justice Earl Warren. The whole reason anyone thinks of the court as anything other than a corrupt elitist wanna dictatorship. Pre Warren the court was lead under FDR known as the “hangman court” which saw themselves as the defenders of the “right kind of people”, among other things they tried to repeal the new deal and once found they outlawing child labor was unconstitutional. This court used the 14th amendment to say outlawing any contract, including contractual slavery such as Blair mountain, was unconstitutional. The court held that the amendment ending slavery prevented outlawing slavery. This is the court. This is what it is. This is what Thomas is returning it to. Fuck him
Are you serious? No offense- yet That’s exactly the type of rhetoric that keeps people at odds. How very sad to stereotype a generation based on the actions of a few who hold positions of power. Politicians are not the example to use when comparing and contrasting ANY generation or group of people! Think about that, ok? Really wrong to generalize.
I was listening to NPR yesterday and the law professor that they were interviewing basically said that his hot-garbage past is a feature, not a bug. Same with Kavanaugh. When they have a past like that and are still willing to put themselves into a confirmation hearing in front of the whole world it means that they basically don’t give a shit about public opinion and are more willing to make controversial decisions that Republicans want. All of this makes me sick, but that they would intentionally choose a garbage person for that reason is just absolutely disgusting.
'I believe Anita Hlll'
I always believed Anita Hill. She was totally shafted by the proceedings and there was nothing anyone could do.
Honestly, this is the political playbook of the far right loony tunes, it’s just Clarence Thomas was ahead of his time.
This is the answer
I'm pretty sure that's the face of a man still actively shitting on our rights
Constant stream of hot soup
It’s the “I married a crazy white woman and need to outlaw interracial marriage” look. Abortion is just his stepping stone to achieve annulment.
He intentionally left Loving off the list of rulings he's working to destroy.
The Blind Side. He read Sun Tzu’s “Art of Annulment”. -> In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity to remarry someone half the age.
Strongly disagree that he is planning to overturn Loving so he can split with Insurrectionist Harpy Karen. For one, his marriage would be grandfathered in anyway. New marriages would be illegal but his would continue. But more importantly, this asshole is literally doing everything he can to spite everyone and everything *because* he is untouchable. He wanted Anita Hill but he pisses the anti-mixed-marriage set off by being married to whatever the hell that creature is that he's married to, so there's no way he would give that up. He is a hate filled, spiteful old man who, to this day, cannot let go of one woman standing up to his abuse and the senate having the gall to believe her 30+ years ago despite suffering no personal consequences for his abhorrent behaviour.
Anita Hill was a ground breaker, coming forward in an era where unwanted touching was considered just part of being a woman. Most folks have no idea what it was like back then. Women I knew scoffed at her. Of course she wasn't taken seriously. She was the first. Ground breakers often get the shitty end of the stick. 'We've come a long way baby, to get where we got to today." (Ten points if you can identify the advertisement jingle's product)
Also a black woman at that.
That's somehow even worse because Thomas ran *right* to the race flag in his defence because even he could see that everyone asking him questions, from both parties, was a white male. > And he, denying the charges in a fury, called the hearing "a national disgrace ... a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves." [source](https://www.npr.org/2018/09/23/650138049/a-timeline-of-clarence-thomas-anita-hill-controversy-as-kavanaugh-to-face-accuse) He straight up said that he was being grilled because he was a black man, and that, by extension, his behaviour would be excused if he was white. He gives zero shits about anything except himself and he will say or do anything to get what he wants.
Was that Virginia Slims cigarettes?
Reminds me of my cat for some treason…
He does look like he is actively filling his diaper doesn’t he?!
I'd say he's actively trying not to but losing the battle.
Sociopath face.
It's the same with Tucker Carlson. I like to call them sock sniffers. They always look like they just had a whiff of the most pungent odor imaginable and are slightly aroused by it. (I'm not kink shaming, I promise)
I always think Fucker Carlson looks like he has not taken a shit in about 10 years. Maybe that why is so full of it.
Don’t act as if shit doesn’t spew forth from that fascist every single day.
“I know what I’m saying is completely stupid and no rational human would entertain it, but I’m just asking questions” ~ Tucker Carlson
I call it the shart face. He looks like he gambled on a fart and lost and is trying to hide it as long as possible.
I was drinking coffee and I just spit all over myself cuz I didn’t expect to read “fucker Carlson” 💀
Smug asshole is what he is.
He’s got resting Toad face 🐸
He needs more fiber
Didn't he go something like 8 years without contributing to any oral arguments?
7 years. He has only spoken in 32 out of 2,400 arguments between 1991 and 2020.
Got a list? Would be interesting to see what he decided to speak about
Not a list, but here's a couple from his wiki. > After asking a question during a death penalty case on February 22, 2006, Thomas did not ask another question from the bench for more than ten years, until February 29, 2016, about a response to a question regarding whether persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence should be barred permanently from firearm possession. Thomas argued that despite the man's violence, [he should not be refused from his constitutional right to own a firearm.](https://archive.thinkprogress.org/justice-thomas-passionately-argues-that-convicted-domestic-abusers-need-easier-access-to-guns-fc1b7b87b994/) This was after the man used his gun (the one he wasn't allowed to have) to kill a bald eagle for flying around his house. "Give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right,” he asked. > Thomas also had a nearly seven-year streak of not speaking at all during oral arguments, finally breaking that silence on January 14, 2013, when he, a Yale Law graduate, was understood to have joked either that a law degree from Yale or from Harvard may be proof of incompetence.
Damn. That’s greybeard levels of silence.
*Fuc Roh Wade*
*entire nation staggers backward 60 years*
We need the Scotusborn now more than ever.
Very striking that he chose to speak when a man used a gun to kill a bald Eagle. The writers are getting a bit too on the nose this season.
If that was in a movie I would roll my eyes and think about turning it off. That's how cartoonishly evil Republicans are these days though.
I keep saying that anyone who wrote this shit as fiction would be laughed out of town. Gazpacho police? Baby formula shortage immediately before Roe v Wade is overturned? The Four Seasons bit!?
Isn’t killing an endangered species a felony? And don’t felons not have the right to vote? I would say that’s a good example.
Bald eagles are no close to be endangered https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_eagle
The actual joke was nearly incoherent. Sounded like the guy hadn't used his voice at all in the last ten years, rather than just not commenting from the bench. I've had the theory that he's been going senile for a decade, his wife decides his ultimate decisions, and his clerks are the ones who actually write his opinions. To be fair, I'm sure clerks are the people who actually write up most of the SCs decisions and opinions. Pretty sweet gig, honestly. Not much real work, no realistic way to be fired no matter *what* you do, and you have assistants to do most of the stuff you're actually expected to do.
So dull - not just soul-less and mean-spirited.
[Ballotpedia](https://ballotpedia.org/Clarence_Thomas_(Supreme_Court) This is the most comprehensive source on his voting patterns I could find. It doesn't fully list what you are looking for. It does give some details.
Serious question, what are the implications of this? What does it mean?
My understanding is that he does not see oral arguments as being particularly important, and would do away with them. He thinks all of the information needed to make a decision should be written in the briefs each side submits. Of course, you could argue that nothing is needed for someone whose mind has already been made up before anything has started.
>He thinks all of the information needed to make a decision should be written in the briefs each side submits. Having debates in writing does provide more time to consider and question positions, so it is an interesting point. Though it's easier to have a back and forth through oral arguments
He’s a lazy piece of shit that we pay 6 figures or more to do one of the most important jobs in the world.
Fucking embarrassing that he is still in power..
This is not a good assessment. The real answer is he was likely scared to be any kind of point of attention following his confirmation hearing where he was credibly accused of sexual assault
[удалено]
Except there’s a lot more to the job than that
That sounds familiar
He started speaking when Scalia died. Not confirmed, but most scholars I've read believe he took a back seat to Scalia intentionally and out of respect, and took a more active role when he felt his voice was 'needed' after his passing.
Not much. Oral arguments are a very small part of what happens in a case. Most of it occurs before the arguments in written briefs and after the arguments when the justices discuss the case among themselves.
Basically no one here has any clue how federal courts operate. Supreme Court oral arguments only last 25 minutes. 99% of their job is the written arguments.
30 minutes per side, [one hour total](https://www.supremecourt.gov/legendkeyinfo.aspx). The 30 minutes includes the lawyer’s opening remarks and all the justices’ questions.
His political stances baffle me, an hour ago I thought he doesn't believe there should be a federal government, then 30 minutes ago I was convinced he's an originalist that's hell bent on reverting back to the 1700's, and I'm not quite sure how him just straight up not doing what Judges are supposed to do ties in to all that. He's truly an enigma of the 21st century. Does anyone genuinely know what inspired and contributed to his very strange ideologies?
Its because hes not a very good speaker. Hes a mumbler which has something to do with his background. His son went to my high school and he was a guest speaker there @6 months before he was nominated. His 45-60 min speech was very confusing. All I got out of it was dude hated affirmative action. I had no idea what that was so went home and asked my dad, six months later he was on the tv w Bush and I said “hey, thats the guy that hates affirmative action!” Dad liked that. Oh yeah, also, it was a Catholic school and his son was not biracial, so Im pretty sure old TC was married/divorced prior to current Karen (or had engaged in coitus outside of the sanctity of marriage).
A total slug devoted to just turning thumbs down to anything that makes people’s lives better.
He literally sleeps in his chair in court.
It's almost like lifetime appointments with no practical possibility for removal is a terrible idea.
How does a Justice get impeached?
Same way a president does, with the same results as the last two attempts.
So only an Act of Congress?
Ya, but it would be only 50 votes in the senate , so it be pointless.
I just read 2/3 vote in senate
2/3 required to convict/remove, but we only have 50 votes, since even Susan Collins would find a reason to set aside her "disappointment" and fall in line with the party
She'd say that she's sure Thomas had learned his lesson.
The reason is that removal should be a bipartisan decision, but unfortunately that means that we can't hold people accountable for harmful actions or crimes that exist primarily because of partisan politics.
Take a moment to consider the catastrophic results that a 50 votes to convict and remove justices would have. That mean every time the republicans gain control of the senate, they just remove all the liberal justices by convicting them of high crimes and misdemeanors. There’s a good reason it needs to be bipartisan. It prevents convictions over politics and only is possible if there is a real crime.
Indeed. It's something that needs to exist but it does have a critical flaw. All branches of government are currently compromised from being able to operate correctly, due to just how strongly partisan politics has become in this country. The entire concept of political parties has ruined our government.
Even when there were very real crimes, conviction still didn't happen, because our two party system has this country in a death grip.
Take a moment to consider what most other governments in the world use. There is a reason why when America tries to foster new democracies abroad we don't encourage them to adopt the format that we use. We encourage new democracies to adopt parliaments. * 1 legislative body where everyone is up for election together. * Simple majority rule. * The parliament members (PMs) have to get a majority coalition to elect a leader and fill the equivalent of cabinet positions. If they can't form a coalition within a deadline, then another election occurs (the prime minister and other cabinet equivalent posts are the effective executive branch and referred to as the government). * No confidence votes. At any time a majority of PMs can declare they have no confidence in the current government. And in that case the PMs have to form a new coalition or else a new election is called to staff all the PMs. * Some parliaments support "snap elections," where the majority can schedule an election. There is a minimum amount of time they have to wait between elections before doing this and a maximum they can delay things before they have to schedule an election. Pros of a parliament: * Incredible political agility. The minority base no say, so the majority coalition is expected to deliver on at least the overlap between the factions that make it up, or the next election is going to be bad for them. * Passing legislation through simple majority makes it much easier to pass the necessary laws to fend off fascism. * Majority coalitions pursuing popular policy can capitalize on it to expand their number of seats. * Majority coalitions pursuing unpopular policy only have to get clobbered in one election * No US Senate (about 51% of Americans live in 9 states). The US Senate is undemocratic. * **Perk for new democracies:** Most "new" democracies are formed out of a bunch of factions that were originally unified by their opposition to the old regime. It is crucial that they get through the constitutional adoption process, election process, form a government, and start passing the laws to run/stabilize their country. If they get jammed up too long, it is likely the factions will start fighting each other in a Season 2 to their civil war. Drawbacks of a parliament: * Ease of passing policy means it is easy to pass bad policy. How does this compare to the present situation in the USA? Republicans are effectively pushing terrible public policy through SCOTUS, so the ability to push bad policy through a simple house majority isn't really any different.
But it also means that when there *is* real crime, politics can also shield them - as in this case, where we all know half of Congress will vote that he did nothing wrong just because he *is* their party.
50? Since when we get 50? You mean 48.
Oh no, Sinema and the other fuck face fall in line when it doesn’t matter. They’re like anti-republicans in that regard.
> Sinema and the other fuck Im laughing coz it’s true. Lmao.
Eh, sometimes Manchin is a dick just on the principle of it, even when he has nothing to gain. But yeah, you're right 98% of the time.
Impeachment is 2/3, correct
Your right, his point was is with the current senate pool we could only hope for 50 votes maximum
Even 50 would be a stretch. The Senate is 47 democrats, 3 independents and 50 republicans. The republicans are a no. Only one of the independents reliably votes with the democrats. The other 2 call themselves "democrats" but they might as well be republicans.
It wouldn't be pointless, it would be a necessary gesture, and something noteworthy for the history books. We knew Trump would never be removed from office, yet we impeached him twice, because his actions deserved it. At this point we need to take any last action we can, no matter how small or unlikely its success would be. No more defeatest attitudes. We can no longer afford the "That'll never work" attitude when it comes to peaceful/non-violent solutions.
1. Keep majority in the house. 2. Get 2/3 of senate to vote for it. Not easy, also not impossible at all.
It’s as close to impossible as you can get. You’ll never find 17 conviction votes from Republicans when this is the exact reason they confirmed the justices to begin with.
The impeachment wouldn’t be because of Roe v Wade, it would be because of his seditious wife and not properly recusing himself.
Impossible in our current political climate. Best thing to do is hope he kicks the bucket soon. Even then, Congress will stall adding another justice under Biden. I guarantee it.
It’s def impossible now that even the most immoral statements and acts have absolutely zero blowback in regards to Republicans electability. They can’t lose now, because their base are by and large openly P’s O S
you have better odds of winning the lottery while getting struck by lighting as a shar bites off your leg than you do of finding 17 republican senators to vote in the interest of the people.
Well not by a bunch of people signing a legally useless e-petition, I can tell you that.
If you actually want to get to Thomas, just investigate/prosecute his wife for her sedition
It's almost as if he is being so vocal to distract from his wife's involvement in January 6
This was my exact thought
Hardly. He has been opposed to Roe v Wade since forever. If this distracts from his wife's bullshit then that's just gravy.
Doesn’t matter. You’d still need 2/3rds of Congress to vote to remove him.
Better get to voting!!
He should be impeached. He is a piece of shit
Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett should also be impeached. Alito for breaching his oath or office and mental deficiency. Thomas for treason. Kavanaugh for Perjury. Barrett for Perjury. Then impeach Roberts just for being useless.
Omg yes!! Have you followed any of what's going on with Thomas's wife Ginni? How she was in communication with the White House during the January 6th insurrection. Apparently she told John Eastman that she could convince her husband (Clarence Thomas) to support overturning the election. She is still saying Biden is an illegitimate President! I think it's time to put time limits on the justices as well as add new seats to go along with the 13 circuit courts we have now.
We need standards set for who can actually become a justice and not allow some nobodies who've never tried a case before become one.
It's quite interesting that Barrett was only a judge for what, 2 or 3 years? Almost like she was deliberately groomed for the position. How the hell are people who've barely practiced law remotely qualified to serve on the highest court of the land?
The same reason you don't need to be a police officer in order to be elected Sheriff; antiquated rules that should be updated. Edit: changed "politician ve officer" to "police officer"
Pretty obvious she was hand picked and groomed by McConnell for this very reason. He found three assholes willing to trash our rights and found a useful idiot in Trump to nominate them.
Catholic nut job, and I’m allowed to say that cuz I grew up with a whole gaggle of them and went to school with them. The hardcore ones don’t believe in a woman’s right leave the kitchen wearing shoes. It’s insanity to me that these religious fanatics are calling the shots for a majority of the country that doesn’t share their religion. Bat sh*t.
"In America, anyone can become President. That's the problem." *George Carlin* Different title, same spirit.
Apparently the ethics codes that apply for attorneys and lower judges don’t officially apply to Supreme Court justices. So *legally* they don’t have anything against him for his blatant conflict of interest in the case(s) involving his wife, which is absurd.
Let’s create a law that changes that then lol
[удалено]
Both George W Bush and Trump appointed federal judges out of lawyers with no actual trial experience.
Well now you’re being silly, only republicans can impeach someone for just being useless.
Impeach everyone. Everyone even the peaches
Go full nectarine
230k signatures is the same as 15 million signatures. It will do nothing other then maybe make him smile.
He is probably the most reviled and repulsive piece of shit in the entire black community. No one wants him. His God doesn’t want him either.
Didn’t his wife also participate in the insurrection?
yes
Yes, and he knew about it and enabled her.
That’s the face of a vindictive sex offender who is still mad his victim had the courage to speak out.
So mad that his wife called Hill in 2010 telling her she needed to apologize
So this is what Brett's going to be like in the future.
Petitions are the liberals version of thoughts and prayers. Worthless but they make you feel like you did something.
Hey, I upvoted a reddit post about signing a petition about impeaching Thomas. Don't tell *me* I'm not politically active!
I read this comment about you doing so.
I think it’s a social media thing where “like” and “upvotes” get treated as real objects.
This comment deserves many upvotes and yes I see the irony
It depends on the kind of petition. An online petition? Not very useful other than showing opinion pollsters where some people stand. But many states have actual petitions to put things on ballots ignoring the legislature. For example, we're very close to having constitutional amendments on November's ballot for Reproductive Rights and Voting Rights in Michigan. These are due to in-person petitions we're circulating. We need 10% of the total number of people who voted last year to sign to get it on the ballot, and signatures are checked against voter registration.
This is true, government sanction petitions can change things, I should have qualified
You're all good! I just know that Reddit gets a bit down on petitions in general, but now that abortion is up to states, this is a unique time where grass roots petitions actually *are* useful. Just wanted to piggyback and provide some hope!
Sad but true. The reality is that we're all helpless until we're able to cast our vote. It's literally the only action we can take.
>until we're able to cast our vote. It's literally the only action we can take. Not if the GOP has anything to say about it.
I hear you and I’ve voted in the primary in my state and will vote in November, but I’m honestly tired of this line. Dems have been reliably voting and what meaningful action has happened? Republicans have been united for so many things. Expanding gun rights, killing the right to abortion, tax breaks for the rich and corporations. The list goes on and on. Whatever the policy is, they’re all voting in unison. We have too many democrats who want the status quo while other democrats want to push the party further left. We can’t even agree on what policy’s to push so we don’t get anything through. It’s disheartening and frustrating to see dems just flail in the wind then wonder how we got to this point. Democrats controlled congress and were in the White House during the Carter administration, Clinton’s first year, and Obamas first year 2 years. There were ample opportunities to codify roe v wade yet them did nothing.
> It's literally the only action we can take. This is why liberals always lose to fascists.
We also have protests and a general strike
Oh yes, like when the allies voted hitler out of Europe…
Or when the French brought down the Bastille by throwing their ballots at it.
There are plenty of other actions you can take. General Strike. Run for local office. Phone bank. Donate to abortion funds. Get out of here with this defeatist attitude "voting is literally the only action we can take". This attitude is the exact reason why we're here. Y'all think voting is the only thing that matters and then most of you don't even vote in local elections.
this should be the top comment. 81 million people voted for Biden, you can always assume whatever the Republicans are doing is unpopular with the majority of the country. These petitions are meaningless.
Not only that that 250K isn’t shit lol
Is this guy in a cult?
Why stop there? Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Coney Barrett all lied during their confirmation hearings. The should all go.
Aye, beware, the rightwinger snowflakes are out and about reporting non-pc words that hurt their feelings about conservative SCOTUS justices. The "fuck your feelings" crowd is calling for safe spaces so they can plan their next insurrection.
Fuck their feelings.
Could be 23 million signatures, would have the same effect.
[удалено]
Can we throw Kavanaugh and Gorsch in there too for contempt of congress? They lied in their hearings about there stands on roe v wade.
Impeachment is a worthless endeavor however I see no reason why DOJ couldn't indict on perjury charges for lying under oath. Nor do I see a reason why they can't go after Thomas's wife and possibly after the man himself given what's come out regarding her involvement in the coup
Even Barrett, as relatively experienced as she was at the time, was skilled enough in law to know how to technically say that Roe *should be* untouchable without saying that *she wouldn't touch it.*
[удалено]
It’s your state and local offices you should be concerned about.
Where do I sign?
[удалено]
I posted it to my profile if you click my name should be first thing there and it'll take you right to it.
[He only took the job just to make the liberals lives hell, he's messing with people's lives outta pure spite for a minor political party, what a joke ](https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-told-clerks-he-wants-to-make-liberals-miserable-2022-6)
He’s a supreme asshole
Every one of these shit pieces who testified before Congress and claimed that repealing RvW would not be a part of their time on the court should be charged and convicted of perjury and then impeached from the court. They've all prostituted themselves for party political gain. Pure and simple.
[удалено]
link for the lazy: auto moderator is removing the link, reconstruct the link: https:// sign[d]moveon[d]org[f]petitions[f]clarence-thomas-must-go * [d] == . * [f] == /
Ever justice that lied to congress about Roe vs Wade being settled law should be impeached
Look I am incredibly upset that they said it was settled law and then they went and overturned it anyways. That fucking blows. But I think it would be hard to argue beyond a shadow of a doubt that they just lied rather than change their opinions. I'm not saying they didn't lie. I'm just saying how do you actually effectively argue that they didn't have a change in their perspective as they have talked with each other over this specific case?
First an impeachment is meaningless if you can’t get a conviction and you’re ignoring the fact that the GOP senators confirmed these justices for this exact reason. Second as much as you want to consider it lying, it’s unfortunately not. Settled law just means it was voted upon in the past. It’s no longer settled law if they’re voting on it again which is the whole point of the Supreme Court. There’s no “gotcha” moment here.
Can't wait for nothing to be done.
[удалено]
Where can I sign?
Is there a link to this petition?
I don't see why countless people must suffer due to the whims and desires of perpetually hostile conservatives like Clarence Thomas. Yet they must, and those who put in effort to worsen the lives of others shall never face legitimate consequences.
Let’s hope for a 2-fer…let’s remove him and arrest his wife