When will Justice Roberts be taken to task on his court containing

[Bluethroughu]

A Justice who's wife was part of a Seditious Conspiracy to overthrow the Presidential election of the United States?

Thomas should HAVE TO RESIGN IMMEDIATELY.

[Srkdqltr]

1. Sure we know that. Who is going to make him? There is no one above a SS justice.

[Bluethroughu]

9. We start making this Robert's problem...

Is Robert's part of the Seditious Conspiracy?

I mean what kind of Chief Justice would allow another Supreme Court Justice sit on the bench while married to a person that orchestrated an attack on the United States.

[stopdiggin]

62. once again. there is no 'allow' involved in this situation

Are you under some misapprehension about the role of chief justice - or lifetime appointment?

[Demsrule86]

119. I know right...Roberts can 'hire or fire' other justices.

[Tadpole Raisin]

82. The biggest 'power' Roberts has is to decide who will write the majority opinion, that is as long as

he voted with the majority.

The only way to change things is to get Congress to change the laws and increase ethics requirements for all judges as well as require SC judges to follow those laws.

You’ll need 60 senators.

It would be nice if any Republican senators are indicted in this mess, they resign and then this legislation is passed. Of course that requires DOJ and all their counterparts to have a spine, and right soon.

Do you need 60 senators or just 60% of those present?

[former9thward]

110. Congress has no power to regulate the SC except to decide what type of cases they can rule on.

They can regulate the judges on the lower federal courts,

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/35-the-theory-of-plenary-congressional-control.html

[Demsrule86]

118. He doesn't have any real power over any justices you know. The only way is impeachment and

that won't work as we don't have the votes.

[fightforfreedom]

30. Public pressure, Political pressure.

That's how you get him to resign.

[Effete Snob]

75. The Constitution is designed to avoid precisely this

The "political branches" of government - the legislative and executive - are designed to be instruments of public and political influence.

The judicial branch is designed specifically not to be responsive to "political pressure".

[bluesbassman]

81. In theory you are correct. In practice it's an entirely different thing.

It is beyond question that the USSC has become responsive to “political pressure”. I would argue that it has become the defacto third legislative branch.

[Effete Snob]

85. Name the last justice who resigned out of public pressure

Remember the pressure on Ginsberg to resign when Obama was president?

[Demsrule86]

120. He will never resign...there is no pressure that would cause this to happen when he will be

replaced by a Democrat. And Republicans have no shame...you can't pressure them into doing the right thing...would that it was possible.

[OMGWTF]

64. SCOTUS doesn't even have a Code of Conduct unlike other court's justices.

[drray23]

2. Roberts can't do anything about it.

The chief Justice has no say who sits on the court. They all have lifetime appointments. Roberts can also not force any of them to recuse from a case, it's up to each individual to decide for themselves.

[Bluethroughu]

12. We should pressure him to acknowledge Thomas should resign

For the integrity of the court.

[Effete Snob]

71. We should pressure all of the justices to do what we want

For the, uh, integrity of the court.

For Roberts to accede to "pressure" to do something, then he would be showing "integrity"?

[snowybirdie]

3. Who will do that?

He's the boss of the Judicial Branch.

[drray23]

4. does not work that way whatsoever.nt.

[snowybirdie]

10. I know Congress could impeach

But Roberts is only guilty of bad leadership. Don't think that's impeachable. Now Thomas is totally another matter. Bring that on!

[Jerry2144]

14. impeach Thomas

BUt getting 2/3 votes in the Senate to remove him from office? There aren't enough Democrats in the Senate to do that. And there might be only on Replbliklan Senator who would vote yes. Meanwhile the "liberal" media will be playing this like it's a democratic overreach to remove an unpopular judge

[Bluethroughu]

26. We couldn't get the GOP TO vote for Impeaching a wanna be dictator.

We need messaging wrapping this court, GOP TFG followers, and Jan 6 insurrection together because Ginnie is the link and they wear the failed coup attempt together.

[Bev54]

66. This could all be solved by extending the number of justices

on SC. If the dems can increase their number in the senate then they should go for it and that alone may inspire some of these RW judges to retire

[Jerry2144]

72. That might be easier

But it will still take much work. We would have to convince Manchin and Sinema to go along. Regardless, we need more playing for team D in the senate than the 50 we got. If we can pickup 6-8 more seats then we can afford to lose one or two on an issue.

None of us can lose sight of the need to get more and better Democratic office holders in every position from local school board and dog catcher to senate

[multigraincracker]

6. Can't he be impeached?

How is that done for a judge?

[Kaleva]

13. What would he would be impeached for?

[multigraincracker]

24. I can think of a few things.

Incompetent and health reasons that impair his judgement, are just a few.

[Kaleva]

50. Call Speaker Pelosi and get the ball rolling

Let us know what her office tells you.

[PufPuf23]

60. Hear an echo of impeachment is off the table.

ain't gonna happen.

[Polybius]

97. Health reasons?

Was RGB impeached?

[multigraincracker]

105. Mental illness

might work.

[Polybius]

107. Trump should have been impeached for that then

Haha.

[Emile]

16. Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805 was impeached

by the house.

[Ocelot II]

22. And acquitted by the Senate.

[Emile]

25. Yes, but he was impeached.

[SoCalDavidS]

34. So Was TFG. Twice!

A lot of good that did.

[stopdiggin]

63. having no practical effect whatsoever

this isn't even effective politics!

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

53. Same as the President

House can vote to impeach, but we don't have the votes in the Senate.

[RestoreAmerica2020]

87. Yes, can be impeached. Unfortunately, difficult to remove E.g. 1804, Samuel Chase, SCOTUS

Was impeached by House, acquitted by Senate. Yet, 2020 gave us the majority to impeach and indict, remove --so there's that, but will the 2 "Dems " [as referenced by Biden ] Manchin, Senema vote to indict and remove?

In 1804, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach Associate Justice Samuel Chase. A signer of the Declaration of Independence, Chase was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President George Washington in 1796. A Federalist, Chase irked Thomas Jefferson and his Republican allies in Congress, and was impeached on politically motivated charges of acting in a partisan manner during several trials. However, in 1805 Chase was acquitted by the Senate, a decision that helped safeguard the independence of the judiciary. He served on the court until his death in 1811.

[Note: sorry, dropped link on referenced article..will add on edit ]

[rsdsharp]

95. The impeachment, by the House, is in effect, the indictment.

That requires only a majority vote, and the Senate has no role. The trial, and eventual conviction or acquittal, takes place in the Senate. Conviction requires a 2/3 majority, not a simple majority.

Even if it was a simple majority to convict, Democrats still don’t have the votes. There are 50 Democratic senators, and the Vice-President has no vote. A 50-50 vote results in an acquittal.

[Claustrum]

7. Um... so we are on the train about blaming one for what their spouse did?

It sounds an awful lot like the people that blamed Hillary for Bill's infidelity.

If there is evidence that Thomas did anything personally in the planning of the insurrection, it would be fine. Or if you think he should resign because he didn't rescue himself from the decision to block his wife's text from surfacing, that's fine too. But your argument is simply that he should resign because he has a seditious wife.....

[Kaleva]

15. +1

[Bluethroughu]

17. You hadn't watched the Woodward/Accosta interview yet?

Besides how can he sit on the Supreme Court and be married to a woman that organized an attack against our Government? Did he file for divorce?

[Effete Snob]

32. Yep

We better take a look at Judge Jackson’s husband, I guess.

[Bluethroughu]

43. Why? Was he or she in attendance of 1/6?

[Effete Snob]

46. No, but we don't know what else he may be involved in

We have to make sure that he has no political activities or interests that would relate to any case that might come before the Supreme Court, right?

[Bluethroughu]

55. Political activities are not what we are talking about...

We are talking about organizing an insurrection against the Legislative branch and the Constitution.

[stopdiggin]

65. which were NOT carried out (so far as we know)

by anyone sitting on the supreme court.

[Effete Snob]

69. Is that what she's been charged with?

Meadows? What's he been charged with?

Show me the law Clarence Thomas broke.

[genxlib]

36. With all due respect

That isn't his crime. His wife is a different person and he doesn't have to be held accountable for what she does.

HOWEVER,

But that isn’t even the most troubling part of the story. It should be noted that Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenting vote when the Supreme Court decided to let the Jan6 Committee see the White House documents. Now we know that his wife is implicated in those documents. That is a clear conflict of interest that should have resulted in recusal.

That may be the most unethical position ever taken by a judge on the Supreme Court. Not only did he not recuse from an obvious conflict of interest, he actively engaged in a cover-up to protect his wife.

Frankly, I think you could make an argument for obstruction of justice (caveate-I am not a lawyer). We wouldn't let him get away with shredding her documents in their home so why should he get away with trying to bury them in the SC.

[Claustrum]

40. I clearly said it would be fine if you think he should resign or be impeached for his

decision not to rescue himself from the decision about his wife's texts.

But that's not the argument that the OP made. The OP is saying he should resign or be impeached because he has a seditious wife, full stop. Nothing about what else he did.

[onenote]

103. You are mistaken in thinking that the SCOTUS ruling impacted the Thomas-Meadows emails.

Those emails weren't among the documents involved in the SCOTUS case -- in fact, those emails were turned over to the Committee by Meadows in December 2021 in response to a subpoena -- a month before the SCOtuS let stand the appeals court ruling finding that the Archives was required to turn over the Trump documents at issue in that case.

[genxlib]

106. I realize that but perhaps I wasn't clear

These particular texts were handed over but Thomas did rule over the case about an entire trove of other documents related to this same subject.

Since his wife was texting, it is very likely that she shows up in other documents that would be part of that document release. She apparently sent emails to Jared for instance. She could be in any number of documents related to visitor logs, planning sessions, etc.

I apologize if I wasn't clear but he is still ruling over issues in which she is implicated and there could be more damaging information beyond those texts.

[Bluethroughu]

116. +1

[uponit7771]

67. The OP presumption is there's NO DAMN WAY Thomas didn't know about his wifes actions. That's hard

... to believe on the face of it

[stopdiggin]

80. or that he veto power over his spouses actions?

or knowledge that they constituted criminal activity?

[Demsrule86]

122. How do you prove something like that?

I loathe Thomas, but I don't think we can do much....maybe if we are lucky, he will recuse himself...who knows.

[Orrex]

91. "Appearance of impropriety"

Notwithstanding the fact that he is and has always been terrible, his wife’s activism irretrievably taints him.

If he had any integrity, he would resign (or die of the “flu”). If he had any integrity, he wouldn’t have gotten into this situation.

[MissMillie]

112. No, but his vote to keep the Presidential Records private

seems to indicate that he knew his wife was up to no good, and that he'd be okay keeping that a secret.

[Baitball Blogger]

8. That's what I'm talking about. Justice Robert's legacy is trashed.

[Bluethroughu]

19. 100%, but why doesn't he care?

[uponit7771]

68. +1, there's NO DAMN WAY Roberts didn't know about the conflict of interest here.

[Baitball Blogger]

74. +1

[onenote]

104. You don't know that. And I think you've acknowledged it

For certain, Thomas should recuse himself from participating in any cases relating to the 2020 election and the events of January 6. But there is no reason to think that Roberts was aware of Ginni Thomas's activities and the Meadows-Thomas emails were not at issue in Trump v. Thompson (which was decided after Meadows had turned over those emails to the Committee).

[uponit7771]

108. He knows now and my assessment that there should be some communication about the institution

... standards still stands.

He should error on the side of communicating vs not

[Hoyt]

11. Not for precedent that one is repsonsible for their spouse's action. Would love for Thomas to resign

[genxlib]

38. See Post #7 above

It isn't being responsible for her crime that matters.

It is covering up for her crime that matters.

[JohnSJ]

18. That is up to Congress, not Robert's. At a minimum, he needs to recuse himself from anything

related to trump and the January 6th insurrectionist

[JohnSJ]

44. I know, but my main point is that this isn't up to Roberts.

[Bluethroughu]

86. +1

[TreasonousBastard]

20. Thomas should resign, or at least recuse himself from..

questionable decisions.

Barring that, the only recourse is impeachment, and we know how that will go. Or not go.

[doc03]

21. By who?

[Beakybird]

23. J6 committee will subpoena her texts and emails. She's neck deep.

If she and her hubby are conspiring together, then he might have to resign.

[Bluethroughu]

31. I hope so.

[redstatebluegirl]

27. Be prepared for the next argument by the right.

It will be the Democrats are trying to throw a Black man off the Supreme Court. See they are not really in the corner of minorities at all. This is what they will begin saying, hoping to keep some minority voters home in November. They have tried to purge the rolls through stupid laws, now they have this issue to beat us with.

Don't tell me they won't do it, you know they will. One of the guys on Morning Joe this morning said Democrats bring policy books to a knife fight when fighting the Republicans, that is really really true. We are nice, we need to get nasty!

[Bluethroughu]

33. Oh I'm sure they will.

[we can do it]

28. When will these posts stop?

[Bluethroughu]

39. When I'm to tired to fight...

And that's not today.

[we can do it]

42. Fighting is one thing, nonsense another.

[Effete Snob]

49. Boldy speak gibberish to power!

[we can do it]

56. Ha!😻

[Bluethroughu]

54. Public pressure on a Supreme Court Justice to uphold the intgrity

Of the court is not nonsense. Nonsense is walking away from consequences for a Supreme Court Justice who's wife has text messages between her and the President's COS pushing to overturn the election of the POTUS, while implying her husband was in knowing this was a plan.

Time and pressure.

[we can do it]

57. Wasting time and energy when there is work to do is nonsense.

[inthewind21]

61. Because

You said so. Got it. How high is it up there on your horse?

[Effete Snob]

76. Yes, it is nonsense

It is a contradiction in terms:

"Public pressure" on any court, with the idea that the court should respond to "public pressure", is NOT consistent with "upholding the integrity of the court."

Courts rule on the matters before them. They are specifically designed not to be responsive to "public pressure".

[Demsrule86]

121. Fight how? There is no winning here....Roberts can't make Thomas do anything. We don't

have the votes for impeachment and removal...And I don't see Thomas caring about public comments...so what do you think should happen. Should the House go through a useless impeachment that will end with Thomas still on the court as the senate won't convict- in an election year no less? That is not fighting but political suicide.

[Bluethroughu]

123. Fighting means, Talking about it incessantly, like

Republicans do, until it sinks into the electorate that electing Republicans to office has brought us a Supreme Court that favors a political party over rule of law.

It's like a script they share as a memo that goes out to the whole republican party nationwide and they circle talk and just bring up the issue and repeat.

Thomas's wife was part of the organizing of an insurrection against our country. A Supreme Court justice's wife, wow.

What did he know, and what does he think now?

[Demsrule86]

124. I think there are more important issues we can deal with...something we can actually do something

about. You and I are all into the insurrection but most people I know are not...it is the past. They are concerned with war, economics, and gas prices. Now I want those who tried to overthrow our government prosecuted of course. But I don't think that would be our go-to issue for the midterms.

[Bluethroughu]

125. I am always talking about those other issues with people also.

This post was a reaction to news getting attention about the big fish actors of the insurrection and it also still matters.

I live in a blue state red county and combat the right wing talking points daily with facts, such as

Russia invaded a sovereign country. Sanctions and aid is working along with determination to be a Democracy from the Ukrainian people. I hate war, so let's support democracies over dictators.

Gas prices are high because gouging has become the norm, call the oil companies and complain or drive less. We have the most reserves and oil is our largest export.

The economy is booming, and workers need to demand their fair share if that means quitting for a higher paying job, do it and let the boss know.

Taxes are not fair because the wealthy pay next to nothing thanks to the rump tax give away for the wealthy. If you want lower taxes quit voting for Republicans, they don't care about anyone but the rich. Tax the rich.

These are always the same issues. Democrats care about everything, republican'ts care about money.

[uponit7771]

70. Possibly when Roberts comes out telling us why he didn't expose this conflict of interest relating

... to one of his jurors?

No seriously, this is some direct bullshit

[onenote]

100. Roberts had no reason to know of Thomas's emails

See post 99.

[Skittles]

111. when something is done about Clarence Fucking Thomas

he is a DISGRACE

[we can do it]

113. Good luck with that.

[Skittles]

115. yes I understand repukes aren't usually held accoutable

that doesn't mean their outrages cannot be thoroughly hashed on DU and elsewhere - this playbook has worked VERY well for repukes for STUFF THEY MAKE UP about Democrats

[bucolic_frolic]

29. There is no mechanism for doing as the OP demands

CJ Roberts has no power. He oversees but doesn't rule on other Justices. Ridiculous to think he will or should.

Marriage is a contract. Spouse is usually responsible for debts and contracts of the spouse. Does that apply to job duties? Does that apply to illegal activities that influence the job of the spouse? Murkier and murkier.

Tainted? You betcha. What do we do with a besmirched Justice? Drag the process that put him there through the mud and expose the corruption. But any end game is unclear, unlikely.

[Bluethroughu]

35. I'm talking about public pressure, or addressing the intregity

Of the court, with Thomas continuing to sit on it.

[bucolic_frolic]

45. Mechanism. In the Constitution. And Roberts didn't put him there. /nt

[Kaleva]

52. Not enough interest to generate the amount of public pressure needed.

[fightforfreedom]

41. Public pressure, political pressure, Thomas must resign.

That's how it is done. Thomas can say he is resigning for health reasons.

[Bluethroughu]

47. Sounds good to me.

[Srkdqltr]

58. Sure you guys lead the way. Talk is cheap.

[marie999]

101. Why would he care about public or political pressure?

[Srkdqltr]

59. You all can say all this until you turn purple, but unless there is a mechanism

To do what you want , nothing will happen.

[ashredux]

73. Actually, Roberts does not have the power to make anyone resign.

Actually, Roberts does not have the power to make anyone resign.

Congress would have to impeach a judge to remove them from the bench. Roberts has very little authority over the other justices

[paleotn]

77. Reminded of Roger Taney....

SCOTIS Chief Justice of Dred Scott infamy and openly supported the south but remained on the court during the Civil War. When he died in 1864, Lincoln made his feelings known by making no mention at all of his passing. He appointed Salmon Chase, a staunch abolitionist as his replacement.

[Bluethroughu]

88. I love that.

[stopdiggin]

78. There is nothing for Justice Roberts to be 'taken to task' for

the associate justices are all independent actors - and hold their positions by virtue of their own appointments. They do not 'answer' to the chief justice in any meaningful (or even oblique) sense. And Roberts does not 'control' either the finite direction - or the 'messaging' or integrity of the court.

You might just as well begin 'petitioning' Alito, Sotomayer, or Barrett - for exactly the same effect.

[Lonestarblue]

79. The only way to make true change at the Supreme Court is to elect more Democrats.

And I know we all try our hardest to do that! Only with more Democrats who are willing to make some changes with the SC will we see more accountability. The first change needs to be term limits—maximum 18 years. The second needs to be a code legal code of ethics. The third needs to be overhauling the shadow docket system where the Court can let laws stand without hearing any arguments, as they did with the Texas abortion law. And a fourth possibility, though it might not be possible, is to allow a president to nominate no more than two justices even if that person serves two terms. No one person should be allowed to pack the Court.

I’m mostly on the fence about whether to expand the Court, though there are good arguments for doing so and for leaving it at the current size.

[bluestarone]

83. Hate to say this BUT, I think only ONE possible thing to do

Expand the court is our ONLY option. (ONLY option)

[Bluethroughu]

89. Sounds good to me.

[ffr]

84. There is no honor or character amongst conservatives. Otherwise, he's have resigned

by now. Thomas too.

INSANE!

[Kablooie]

90. This will all blow over soon.

With no consequences for any justices.
Just like Trump getting away with everything with no consequences.

Democrats use law and morals to discipline government officials.
Republicans simply ignore those in the pursuit of total power.

[wryter2000]

92. Roberts had no power to make Thomas resign

No one does. As long as he's going to behave as shamelessly as the rest of the Republican party, there's nothing anyone can do short of impeaching him or hauling him off to jail. Ruling on a case where he has a clear conflict of interest doesn't break any laws. Even if his wife were to be convicted of a crime, which is doubtful, that wouldn't affect his position on the Court.

If impeachment works the same way it does for a president, I guess the House could start impeachment hearings. I'm not sure I want to sit through a bunch of his bleating about "an electronic lynching" again if the whole thing is pointless.

[question everything]

93. But does he have the power to establish ethics rules?

Lower courts do, but not the Supreme Court. According to Tubin on CNN earlier.

This would be a start.

Thomas has never recused himself while in this office.

[wryter2000]

127. I don't know whether Roberts can establish ethics rules.

I kind of doubt it.

[The Jungle 1]

94. Get him out now.

Contact all your congressmen.

[Polybius]

96. A Chief Justice doesn't have much more power than an Associate Justice

Roberts can't do a thing.

[onenote]

99. This isn't going to be popular, but the case heard by Thomas didn't involve Ginni Thomas's emails.

That case involved a variety of presidential records held by the Archives. Ultimately the Supreme Court ruled in January 2022 that those specific documents could be released to the January 6 Committee. But there is no reason to think that those documents included the Thomas emails. Indeed, the Thomas emails were turned over to the Committee by Mark Meadows in December 2021 pursuant to a subpoena he had received from the Committee.

In other words, the Ginni Thomas emails already were in the Committee's hands at the time the Supreme Court ruled on Trump's records.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

102. This is no longer the Roberts court.

It's the McConnell court. Move like a snail when reviewing an Obama appointment. Move like a cheetah when reviewing RBG's replacement. He got three right-wing Catholic justices seated during one presidential term. He owns it.

[Meowmee]

109. Never

And no one is going to resign, that is my prediction. I hope I am wrong.

[Blue Owl]

114. K&R

[BlueIdaho]

117. History will not be kind to Roberts and his kangaroo court.

Not much pressure can or arguably should be put on Justice Roberts, but the full weight of history will condemn him and his revisionist cabal of Justices. It’s a shit court unworthy of the name “Supreme.”

[niyad]

126. Never.