Quote :

"Has this country become so corrupt that our elected officials and the media will simply look the other way while Clarence Thomas makes a mockery of judicial impartiality? How nice that he has rich friends who do such nice favors -- I'm sure it doesn't influence him in the least: Justice Clarence Thomas is an ethics problem in a black robe. Just eight months after ThinkProgress broke the story of Thomas’ attendance at a Koch-sponsored political fundraiser, we learn that Thomas doesn’t just do unethical favors for wealthy right-wing donors — they also do expensive favors for him. Leading conservative donor Harlan Crow, whose company often litigates in federal court, donated $500,000 to allow Thomas’s wife to start a Tea Party group and he once gave Thomas a $19,000 Bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass. The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank which frequently files briefs in Thomas’ Court, also gave Thomas a $15,000 gift.If this sounds familiar, it’s because America has seen this movie before. Indeed, the Thomas scandal is little more than a remake of the forty year-old gifting scandal that brought down Justice Abe Fortas. Like Thomas, Fortas liked to associate with wealthy individuals with potential business before his Court. And like Thomas, Fortas took inappropriate gifts from his wealthy benefactors. [...] It is difficult to distinguish Fortas’ scandal from Thomas’. Like Fortas, Thomas accepted several very valuable gifts from parties who are frequently interested in the outcome of federal court cases. One of Thomas’ benefactors has even filed briefs in his Court since giving Thomas a $15,000 gift, and Thomas has not recused himself from each of these cases. "

He's a whore...Justice for Sale.

Quote :

" Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge How Current is This? (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; (2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it; (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy; (4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; (5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: (i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party; (ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; (iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding. (c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal "

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/455.html

6/20/2011 11:02:07 PM

The democrats don't care. Besides, they have their own impeachment problems to deal with.

6/20/2011 11:14:51 PM

get back to me when he refuses to recuse himself from related cases. Also, get back to me when he is on retainer for anyone, much less when he doesn't recuse himself when it matters. Also, get back to me when said retainer is on the order of half his salary.

also, do you care to offer a link for the original bullshit that was posted? or did you get it in a chain email that also told you not to buy gas from Citgo because Chavez is building iranian missiles?`

in other words, this situation is NOTHING like the Abe Fortas situation. troll on, troll

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 11:33 AM. Reason : ]

6/21/2011 11:32:28 AM

http://bit.ly/lOTMuf

6/21/2011 12:11:58 PM

On a purely semantics point, can anyone really be "forced to resign"? I think politicians give up too easily. They should cling to power until the cops wrench them from their chair or someone goes "et tu brute" on their ass.

6/21/2011 12:15:55 PM

ahhh, thinkprogress. effectively the same as a chain email. got it.
the only "link" between the two is a claim that AEI filing briefs is a thing requiring recusal on account of AEI giving him a fucking award and a bust of Abe Lincoln. really? really... that's the best you got?

this amounts to nothing more than a liberal panty twister bitching that a justice isn't also a liberal panty-twister. again, get back to me when there are actual ethics issues

6/21/2011 12:20:59 PM

One time I got angry because there were corrupt Republicans. Then I didn't get angry anymore because I noticed there were corrupt Democrats. Then I stopped caring.

6/21/2011 12:33:55 PM

Also, Thomas has not asked a question in court for over 5 fucking years! How about impeaching him for incompetence?

6/21/2011 12:34:49 PM

Sorry, he's an appointed leader with ultimate power over the country for the duration of his life.

How is this not a monarchy again?

6/21/2011 12:45:37 PM

The Supreme Court is one of the biggest flaws of our government. Lifetime appointments are truly a bad idea for so many reasons. I would support term limits in all areas of government.

6/21/2011 1:01:21 PM

You know what creeps me out?

Judicial elections.

6/21/2011 1:10:57 PM

Quote :

"Real estate magnate Harlan Crow has been very good to Justice Clarence Thomas, lavishing gifts and other favors on Thomas and his family. Crow provided $500,000 to allow Thomas’ wife to start a Tea Party group, and he once gave Thomas a $19,000 Bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass. He also served on the board of a corporate-aligned think tank called the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which once gave Thomas a $15,000 gift. As ThinkProgress reported earlier this week, AEI filed at least three briefs in the Supreme Court after giving Thomas this very expensive gift, and Thomas either sided with AEI or took a position that was much more extreme that AEI’s in all three of these cases. ThinkProgress has now learned that a second Harlan Crow-affiliated group, the Center for the Community Interest, has a perfect record in front of Justice Thomas. Crow served on CCI’s board alongside failed Bush judicial nominee Miguel Estrada. Westlaw’s database of Supreme Court briefs reveals eight briefs filed by CCI in eight different Supreme Court cases, and Justice Thomas voted for CCI’s preferred outcome in every single one of these cases: •City of Chicago v. Morales: The lower court struck down a law “making it illegal for members of criminal gangs to loiter and fail to obey an order to disperse.” CCI asked the Court to reverse that decision, and Justice Thomas wrote a dissent saying that he would reverse. •Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott: The lower court struck down a parole board’s warrantless search of a parolee’s residence. CCI asked the Court to reverse that decision, and Justice Thomas wrote the 5-4 decision reversing. •Dickerson v. U.S.: The lower court upheld a statute cutting at the core of accused defendant’s Miranda rights. CCI asked the Court to affirm this decision. Justice Thomas joined a dissent which would have affirmed. •U.S. v. Knights: The lower court struck down the warrantless search of a probationer’s residence. CCI asked the Court to reverse. Justice Thomas joined a decision reversing. •U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development v. Rucker: The lower court ruled in favor of public housing tenants who were evicted because their resident family members or caregivers violated drug laws. CCI asked the Court to reverse. Justice Thomas joined a decision reversing. •Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe: The lower court struck down a law requiring public disclosure of registered sex offenders. CCI asked the Court to reverse. Justice Thomas joined a decision reversing. •U.S. v. American Library Ass’n, Inc.: The lower court struck down a federal law requiring many public libraries to use filtering software that prevents web browsers from showing some pornographic material. CCI asked the Court to reverse. Justice Thomas joined a plurality opinion reversing. •Devenpeck v. Alford: The lower court held an arrest unconstitutional. CCI asked the Court to reverse. Justice Thomas joined an opinion reversing. "

[Edited on June 25, 2011 at 7:00 AM. Reason : ...]

6/25/2011 6:59:48 AM

Quote :

"Sorry, he's an appointed leader with ultimate power over the country for the duration of his life. How is this not a monarchy again?"

They only rule on cases that come before them, they heavily rely on precedent and the text of relevant regulations, statutes, treaties, and Constitutions, and also, as a more technical point...there has never been just one justice on the Court (originally there were six, and there were briefly ten, but we have settled on nine for about a century), so it's at worst an oligopoly

6/25/2011 8:17:07 AM

Look...when there is at least a hint of potential ethical issues going on here and you automatically dismiss them most likely because the guys politics agree with your own...you know you're a partisan hack.

6/25/2011 8:19:06 AM

No, I dismiss them because I have respect for the institution. It is the only branch I know of that always either does good or declines to do bad. It has never made things worse, it has merely declined to improve them.

6/25/2011 9:00:16 AM

Quote :

"It has never made things worse, it has merely declined to improve them."

It solidified corporate personhood and enabled shadowy PACs in a recent campaign-finance decision

that made things worse

6/25/2011 9:10:28 AM

I would say both of those made things better. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech", even of citizens that happen to receive paychecks from a corporation.

6/25/2011 11:20:09 AM

Clarence Thomas has been a joke for a while, but it hasn’t been blatantly egregious enough to register on the public’s radar. Most people barely know who/what the supreme court is, so they mostly slip under the radar.

But, they are probably the branch most closely modeled how the founding fathers wanted.

And the reasoning for lifetime term limits is so that the judges don’t feel pressured by reelections to be swayed by special interests etc.. It would make things worse to eliminate this.

6/25/2011 11:42:51 AM

Quote :

"You know what creeps me out? Judicial elections."

How are judicial appointments any better?

6/25/2011 12:48:58 PM

Quote :

"And the reasoning for lifetime term limits is so that the judges don’t feel pressured by reelections to be swayed by special interests etc.. It would make things worse to eliminate this. "

I actually agree with Moron. Great point.

6/25/2011 11:10:28 PM

impeach the president, his cabinet, the senate, the house, and the supreme court

bring in some fresh blood

6/25/2011 11:33:27 PM

and the Mayor of Truckville.

6/26/2011 3:31:30 AM

Quote :

"How are judicial appointments any better?"

In short, less of a direct buying of influence and more deliberative consideration of qualifications.

Pretty decent summary
http://judgesonmerit.org/why-we-need-merit-selection/

It's worth noting that the legal environments most conducive to stable economies and business environments are in states with judicial appointments and the worst are mostly elected judiciaries.

[Edited on June 27, 2011 at 1:20 PM. Reason : x]

6/27/2011 1:10:59 PM

Quote :

"It solidified corporate personhood and enabled shadowy PACs in a recent campaign-finance decision"

this is incorrect. it solidified that people dont lose their right to free speech when they associate with a group.

6/27/2011 1:17:14 PM

^^The person responsible for appointing SCOTUS justices is elected, and the voters are usually (sometimes?) aware of that when they vote, so I don't know that our current way of doing things is much different. They're still being elected in a way, just once removed from the democratic process. I don't see how that's an improvement, and you've failed to demonstrate how it is.

[Edited on June 27, 2011 at 2:25 PM. Reason : ]

6/27/2011 2:25:41 PM

If you're not going to have any sort of trust in them anyway, why should I bother to just post more links about why electing judges directly is a bad thing? It's pointless.

6/27/2011 2:51:06 PM

The same exact reasons that make electing judges a bad idea also apply to every other elected office. Do you think congressmen or presidents are somehow immune to electoral pressures?

[Edited on June 27, 2011 at 3:00 PM. Reason : ]

6/27/2011 2:58:25 PM

No, but they are largely constrained by laws which are interpreted by judges, who we should expect to have a level of professional qualification which we don't test elected representatives by.

The constitution doesn't interpret itself.

Are they perfect? Of course not, but that doesn't mean we don't even try to do things in the way that best ensures competency in judicial review.

6/27/2011 3:14:02 PM

Quote :

"this situation is NOTHING like the Abe Fortas situation. troll on, troll"

You're absolutely right. What Thomas and his wife have done is much worse and Fortas was a liberal judge.

7/5/2011 2:13:45 PM

keep believing that, buddy. You have yet to show ANY wrongdoing. All you've got is "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH HE DOESN'T RULE THE WAY I WANT HIM TO, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH"

Quote :

"Look...when there is at least a hint of potential ethical issues going on here and you automatically dismiss believe them most likely because the guys politics disagree with your own...you know you're a partisan hack."

FTFY

7/6/2011 12:47:26 PM

You rang?

7/25/2011 5:37:59 PM

http://tinyurl.com/3qqetbq

Democratic Congresswoman wants to selectively and "retroactively recuse" Justice Thomas in cases that has had a part in deciding.

I was sifting through that Constitution thingie and couldn't find where Congress has power to do that.

shrugs

10/5/2011 9:13:49 AM

^don't believe they can. I think only SCOTUS justices can recuse themselves.

and lol @ this thomas hate. every. single. justice. has. been. purchased.

10/5/2011 9:22:56 AM

I think supreme court judges should be appointed by the states. Whenever needed, the governors of the nation get together and elect a replacement.

10/5/2011 10:32:27 AM

Would that help give the states a say in the Federal Government?

I think the states need more say, and I would be willing to give up my right to vote for my senator (as awesome as Marco Rubio is), to give the states more power in the Federal Government.

I'm all for repealing the 17th Amendment.

I'm not sure about Supreme Court Appointments, though.

haven't thought about it

10/5/2011 10:36:19 AM