Clarence Thomas Should Be Investigated, Majority of Americans Think--Poll

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

A recent poll has shown that the majority of Americans think Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should face an investigation regarding his refusal so far to recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 presidential election.

It was recently revealed by the House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol that Thomas' wife, Ginni Thomas, had corresponded via email with John Eastman, an adviser to former President Donald Trump who reportedly pressured former Vice President Mike Pence to block the certification of Joe Biden's 2020 victory. It was already discovered that Ginni Thomas had conversations with former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in early January 2021.

The poll conducted by non-profit Demand Justice and Heart Research Associates, which said that data was collected before the new information regarding Thomas and Eastman's correspondence was publicized, found that in total, 61 percent of Americans said that they "favor" Congress launching an investigation into Justice Thomas, while just 25 percent said they "oppose" an investigation.

Respondents were asked: "So far, Clarence Thomas has not recused himself from cases about the 2020 election, which may violate a federal law requiring justices to abstain in certain cases. Do you favor or oppose Congress beginning an investigation into Justice Thomas over this issue?"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clarence-thomas-should-be-investigated-majority-of-americans-think%e2%80%94poll/ar-AAYAGwY

[CatWoman]

1. and then he should resign

[Sneederbunk]

2. He should take his pension, coke can and go.

[SergeStorms]

8. And his....

pubic hair.

[jimfields33]

4. He will stay until his last breath just for spite.

[ShazzieB]

10. He absolutely should.

Last edited Fri Jun 17, 2022, 08:57 PM - Edit history (1)

He needs to just retire. The dude is 73 and has served on the SCOTUS since 1991. If he has any sense at all (and I don't know that he does), he'll step down now, before he gets impeached or is hounded out under a cloud of disgrace. (No one can fire a SCOTUS justice, but I'm sure there would be ways to make it very unpleasant for him to stick around. Might as well get out now, while the getting is still good. It certainly won't hurt him financially. He'll have his SCOTUS pension, which he could probably supplement nicely with speaking fees, if he wants to.

He may be too stubborn to recognize the benefits of retiring now, and I'm sure doing it while a Democrat is in the Oval Office would stick in his craw. But thst is definitely what he should do.

[KS Toronado]

17. I believe he's so far right

he'll only retire with a R in the White House. Hopefully enough public pressure and or an impeachment
trial could change his mind. Far right religious zealots think they're doing God's work.

[wnylib]

20. Unfortunately, no impeachment

unless we get a lot more Dems in the Senate and hold the House.

[KS Toronado]

21. True, my friend

Still waiting on PET scan report.

[wnylib]

22. The wait can be so frustrating.

Whatever the results, your DU family will be here for you.

Hope it turns out as good as can be expected.

[Harker]

11. I'd prefer to enjoy the two events in the opposite order. n/t

[question everything]

12. Sadly, not this year

Not when there is a Democratic President

Suffering a stroke, on the other hand..

On the third hand, can incapacitated Justice stays if he refuse to resign?

[Midnight Writer]

3. "violate a Federal law requiring justices to abstain in certain cases"? Is there such a law?

I thought that was left up to the individual justices. Am I misinformed?

[jimfields33]

5. You are 100 percent correct

This article is taking some liberties on how it works. There will definitely not be an investigation on this by congress even if 100 percent wanted it. Congresspersons know the rules.

[calimary]

6. So how do we apply pressure? And on whom?

[jimfields33]

7. An amendment to the constitution would do the trick.

That’s literally the only way. Supreme decide for themselves whether to abstain from a vote. Period.

[gratuitous]

16. There is a law for all non-Supreme Court federal judges

As others have noted, it's up to each individual justice on the Supreme Court to decide whether to recuse on any particular matter. I'm not sure where this practice is grounded. It's not in the Constitution, so far as I know. And for a couple of centuries, that system worked tolerably well, because Justices had consciences, moral compasses, and personal ethics. The current Justices have a spotty record when it comes to those considerations. Some are quite scrupulous, while others don't give a flying fuck about their personal improprieties, either actual or apparent.

I think Congress could enact a judicial reform law that sets up a review board that would force a Supreme Court Justice to recuse when certain criteria are met, such as "Does the Justice's spouse have a financial or career interest in the case before the Court?"

[homegirl]

9. OMG!

THIRTY YEARS!

I knew he was a worthless, unqualified candidate when I listened to the Anita Hill hearings 30 years ago!

FINALLY!!!

[BootinUp]

15. +1

[maxsolomon]

13. Investigated by whom?

SCOTUS Justices have no oversight.

They could be impeached, but please. He's going nowhere until he passes.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

14. His actions and those of his wife should be fully investigated and exposed.

Calls for his resignation should be loud and persistent.

[bringthePaine]

18. he must be investigated because, as we've always known, he lacks the character to do what's right

[bucolic_frolic]

19. Eye popping

You gotta be doing something wrong to be on the SCOTUS and lose 69% of the people.

In this case though, it's likely 90% of Democrats because of ethics issues. And 35% of Republicans because of race.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

23. There is no feasible mechanism to remove him. We're stuck with him. nt

[Skittles]

24. he should never have been a SC justice

he is disgusting