Clarence Thomas SUCKS!

Featured Video Play Icon

Worst Supreme Court “Justice” in history Clarence Thomas objected to a decision of the court to NOT take up a case from New York health workers challenging vaccine mandates on religious grounds, with Thomas saying the vaccines were developed from “aborted children.” While it is true that stem cells from aborted fetuses that have been stored for many decades were used in the development, even the Catholic Church has said that it was for the greater good and wasn’t worth objecting to.

 

 

Clarence Thomas is compromised and should be removed from the Supreme Court due to his incompetence, political activism “decisions”, failure to recuse himself, his wife’s inappropriate behavior such as texts about the 2020 election and potentially LYING under Oath during his confirmation to the Supreme Court.

 

 

Ginny Thomas (Clarence Thomas’ Wife) Pressured WH to Overturn 2020 Election

Jesse talks about the latest reporting surrounding the efforts of Virginia ‘Ginny’ Thomas (Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife) to pressure the White House through Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to not concede and to effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election. She sent DOZENS of text messages containing strategy, conspiracy, encouragement, and general unhinged ideas to Mark Meadows following the November election and January 6th insurrection at the United States Capitol.

 

Sen. Whitehouse: Supreme Court Must Investigate Justice Thomas’s Jan. 6 Votes

Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is calling on Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts to investigate after The Washington Post reported that Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife was in contact with Trump attorney John Eastman, who was pushing the plan for VP Mike Pence to fail to certify the 2020 election results.

 

Clarence Thomas wants to take away more rights

Clarence Thomas suggests court should reconsider same-sex marriage, contraceptives

#ClarenceThomasIsAnIdiot

#ClarenceThomasCanEatShit

#FuckClarenceThomas

#ImpeachClarenceThomas

#RemoveClarenceThomas

 

Clarence Thomas wrote alone in a concurring opinion explicitly calling for the court to revisit landmark rulings on contraceptives and gay marriage.

 

Title from Youtube / MSNBC: ‘Lawrence: Clarence Thomas Is A Politician’

Description from Youtube / MSNBC: “After Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas posed for a photo with the Donald Trump-endorsed Georgia Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell says that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is making it very clear to voters whose side he is on”.

Thomas being the only Justice (8 to 1) voting to block release of Presidential records to the January 6 committee raises concerns that Thomas may have used his position to block the committee from obtaining the texts about overturning the 2020 election, between his wife and Mark Meadows (as reported by news outlets such as MSNBC).

This could be a violation of  28 U.S. Code § 455 – Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding”.

 

McConnell Knows Evidence Against Justice Thomas Is ‘Damning’

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell says Mitch McConnell’s speech insisting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should not be impeached shows that McConnell is worried about Clarence Thomas’s future on the Court.

 

Many people feel Clarence Thomas is unfit for the Supreme Court and is one of the worst Supreme Court Justices in history. His opinions & judgements are inconsistent with the values and beliefs of the majority of Americans. Also, his wife’s activism calls into question her influence on Thomas’s decisions.

 

Supreme Court rejects Trump claim of ‘absolute immunity’ from grand jury subpoena for tax returns

In a history-making decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled President Donald Trump cannot claim “absolute immunity” from criminal investigation while in office and may need to comply with a New York grand jury subpoena seeking his personal financial records. “The court found that the president is not above the law.

A 7 to 2 Supreme Court decision rejected Trump claim of ‘absolute immunity’ from grand jury subpoena for tax returns.

And who felt Trump should be treated like a Dictator and have ‘absolute immunity’?

REPUBLICAN APPOINTED “Justices” Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

IMO, this decision shows that Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito are behaving more like political activists than Judges. Bet if Trump were a Democrat, Thomas and Alito would have ruled differently.

It also seems that Clarence Thomas was behaving like a political activist by being the ONLY Justice (8 to 1 – Thomas) voting to block release of Presidential records to the January 6 committee, favor Trump.

 

 

Dem: Yes, Clarence Thomas Is ‘Uncle Tom’

Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi has decided to stand by the controversial racial comments he made over the weekend. In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash he reiterated his belief that Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas is an “Uncle Tom.”

Per the above article: Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi has decided to stand by the controversial racial comments he made over the weekend. In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash he reiterated his belief that Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas is an “Uncle Tom.” When Bash asked if the term was racially charged, Thompson said “For some it is, but to others it’s the truth,” adding it was permissible to say because “I’m black.” In his interview with the New Nation of Islam on Sunday, he also said he believed Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell mistreated Obama because he was black.

 

Clarence Thomas accused of sexual abuse in confirmation hearings with lewd details of “Pubic Hair” & “Long Dong Silver” on National TV

In the above video Anita Hill stated in her Senate testimony on 10/12/91 about Clarence Thomas;

“He would turn the conversation to a discussion of sexual matters. His conversations were very vivid. He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes. He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts involving various sex acts. On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess. Because I was extremely uncomfortable talking about sex with him at all, and particularly in such a graphic way, I told him that I did not want to talk about this subject. I would also try to change the subject to education matters or to non-sexual personal matters, such as his background or his beliefs.” Hill also claimed Thomas stated “there is a pubic hair in my Coke” and that he spoke of “Long Dong Silver“.

 

The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas

On the same fall night in 2016 that the infamous Access Hollywood tape featuring Donald Trump bragging about sexual assault was made public by the Washington Post and dominated the news, an Alaska attorney, Moira Smith, wrote on Facebook about her own experiences as a victim of sexual misconduct in 1999.

Lillian McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas

For nearly two decades, Lillian McEwen has been silent – a part of history, yet absent from it. When Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his explosive 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Thomas vehemently denied the allegations and his handlers cited his steady relationship with another woman in an effort to deflect Hill’s allegations.

Lillian McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas

In the above article, ex girlfriend Lillian McEwen stated “He was obsessed with porn.” “He would talk about what he had seen in magazines and films, if there was something worth noting.”

McEwen also said that the conservative Thomas was constantly on the make at work. “He was always actively watching the women he worked with to see if they could be potential partners,” said McEwen. “It was a hobby of his.” She added that he once told her he had asked a woman at work what her bra size was.

Lying Under Oath Could be Grounds for Removal from Office

If McEwen’s accusations are true, that would collaborate Anita Hill’s testimony and prove that Clarence Thomas lied to the Senate, committed perjury, engaged in Sexual Harassment and should be removed as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

 

Ex-Federal Prosecutor Glenn Kirschner discusses how Judges can be removed without an impeachment vote by the Senate if they lied under oath.

 

Two ways Democrats can remove Kavanaugh – without impeaching him

Before Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in, critics were calling for his impeachment. The political polarization over allegations that he had assaulted Christine Blasey Ford when they were teenagers doesn’t show much sign of abating. Impeachment is a polarizing process itself, though, one that even many Democrats appear uneasy about pursuing if they win control of Congress in next month’s elections.

Per the above article: “A Democratic Congress and a future Democratic president could remove Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court if they wanted without needing to impeach him. There are two other ways to kick a sitting justice off the court – neither of which requires a supermajority.

In the first, a new president would nominate and the Senate would confirm by majority vote a justice – in this case Kavanaugh – to a different post on an intermediate court of appeals (say the D.C. Circuit, where Kavanaugh formerly served). The justice would, in effect, be demoted.

It finds support in an 1803 Supreme Court case called Stuart v. Laird. The fading Federalist Party of John Adams had created 16 new federal judgeships in 1801 – in part to spare Supreme Court justices from having to “ride the circuit” and hear regional appellate cases. Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans triumphed at the polls and abolished the new positions in 1802.

The second alternative method of relieving a justice of his or her duties. In a 2006 article in the Yale Law Journal, two scholars (conservatives, as it happens), Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, amassed historical evidence that the Framers understood the “good behavior” standard to be judicially, rather than just politically, enforceable.

They pointed out that judicial removal proceedings were used in English law in the 1780s, and were included in the New York, South Carolina and Massachusetts pre-1787 constitutions. Moreover, they noted, “good behavior” was included by the Continental Congress as a standard in the 1787 Northwest Ordinance for courts in the territories – before there were a separate House and Senate to conduct an impeachment.

As (roughly) proposed in the Yale article, Congress could pass a statute authorizing a specially constituted bench of federal judges – say, five randomly drawn judges – to determine whether a particular judge (here, Kavanaugh) had violated the “good behavior” standard. That special bench could hold a hearing and, if convinced by the evidence, make the requisite finding to trigger exit from the bench. This approach wouldn’t require a congressional supermajority. It would need a presidential signature.

Current federal law contains a trace of this mechanism. When a judge is convicted of a felony, whether in state or federal court, the law now states that he or she “shall not hear or decide cases” unless a council of judges decides otherwise. To be sure, the judge keeps a salary in the interim. But the judge is effectively sidelined – as completely as if he or she were impeached.

The creation of a new vehicle for judicial peer review seems to be the optimal option, as it would create a nonpartisan, procedurally robust device for disciplining judges.

Supreme Court justices right now have no real supervisors when it comes to ethics, and impeachment has come to seem excessively partisan. A standing body, available for all cases of misconduct – not just a ticket for one ride only – would resolve that problem, no matter who the appointing president.

 

Hits: 135