Yeah, so rare in Washington.
Oh, shit. Gotta pick up my eyeballs. Rolled them so hard they fell out.
A little bit of vomit in back of my throat
- Thread starter VicBee
- Start date
Yeah, so rare in Washington.
Oh, shit. Gotta pick up my eyeballs. Rolled them so hard they fell out.
I think the constitution ought to be amended as we evolve as a society, per existing amendments. Originalists are fundamentalists, and I meant it pejoratively.
That's a word salad answer to my question.
You talked about removing Clarence Thomas for this or that and "dismissing" dismissing justices if they violate some ethics rules. But I pointed out to you that the Constitution specifies how a Supreme Court Justice can be removed. Whereupon I asked whether you planned to ignore the Constitution or amend it (a multi-year process that the dems cannot accomplish even for an Equal Rights for Women amendment, for abortion, and for repealing/amending the 2nd Amendment regarding gun rights.)
You thinking that "the constitution ought to be amended" does not carry much weight in talking about removing Thomas nor does your talk about ethics reviews and "dismissing" and all of that. Sorry Cowboy. One way and one way only to remove him. When you join in with the lefty mob trying to put the runaway slave who left the dem plantation back in chains, you should do your homework.
Lol, that's salad talk to me. Thomas should be thrown out for major ethics failures. Of course it's not going to happen while Republicans control the House. But that shows a process weakness, not that he isn't guilty.
Not going to happen in the Senate either which requires a two-thirds vote to remove. Dems have only a two seat majority.
You call this scenario a "process weakness." It isn't. The process is fine. You just don't have the support in either house to remove him. See how it works? As a lefty you started out thinking that if you "feel" that Thomas should be removed that you can do it. Nope. More to it than how you feel.
The process is not fine, it is partisan as you clearly point out.
I am not stating a party because this bullshit runs to both sides of the aisle.
The removal of Thomas as a judge should be on whether he committed an ethics violation that rises to the level of removal. If not, then no problem. If yes then bye bye. That is the way the process is supposed to work.
Gets to be academic as to what is labeled as "the process." The poster talked about "scrutinizing and dismissing" based on some undefined ethics review. .
My comments were in the direction of saying that the process of removing a justice is defined in the constitution. By analogy somewhat might say, for example, that the jury process in American legal process is fine but that actors within it - whether prosecutor or juror or judge can act without integrity and faithfulness to the process. In which case the underlying process is fine but there are bad actors within it.
Spinning our wheels a bit.
If anyone wants to take Clarence down, go for it. But don't even talk to me about a process that involves ethics reviewers who will dismiss him. Nope.
We just had two impeachment trials of Trump and the lefties were more than fine with using the process for trying to achieve their partisan goals. Yep, did not hear any complaints about the process there. Only that in the end they did not have enough support for their political hit job.
Last edited:
I don't feel he should be removed. He should be removed for failure to disclose decades of payments from a known Republican billionaire activist. Get the difference? That the Republican party lacks an ethical spine when it comes to their own is clear. After all you voted Trump in.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/proud-boys-guilty-trump-legal-january-6-rcna82042
Must be a Leftist conspiracy to attack good proud Americans who believe in the values of white christian nationalism...
Must be a Leftist conspiracy to attack good proud Americans who believe in the values of white christian nationalism...
Heh, it is a lot of fun to watch your ilk cry "witch-hunt" as the investigation and facts begin to close in on Biden. Let's see what your "ethical spine" will look like there. Oh, I know, "if the facts show, I will definitely blah, blah, blah." Then you go into full trance-state denial of anything and everything. Laptop? I know nothing. All conspiracy. Burisma and payment to stop the prosecutor in Ukraine from prosecuting Hunter. I know nothing. Suspicious activity reports showing Chinese payments to the Biden syndicate, Joe included while he was in office. I know nothing.
So, that's going to be a no to removing Clarence Thomas. Deal with it.
Also, I am waiting for you to get back to me on when you want to impeach Sotomayor. Clarence accepted no funds from anyone who was before the court. Sotomayor?
2 Supreme Court justices did not recuse themselves in cases involving their book publisher
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/poli...h-book-recusal-supreme-court-cases/index.html
Last edited: