Women's March pushes for impeachment of Justice Thomas over wife's texts

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: The Hill

The Women's March is calling for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas after the release of text messages showing his wife, Ginni Thomas, pushed for then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to stick to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

"The revelations that Ginni Thomas advocated for the overthrow of our democracy are disqualifying - not just for her as a human being of any decency, but for her husband Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas," Women's March Executive Director Rachel O' Leary Carmona said in a statement.

Link to tweet

"From the day he was nominated to the Court, Thomas has always acted less like a reasonable jurist and more like his wife - that is to say a professional conservative activist," Carmona added. "He is hopelessly compromised, conflicted, and corrupt, and he must be impeached IMMEDIATELY."

The Hill has reached out to Thomas for comment.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/womens-march-pushes-impeachment-justice-164101734.html

[hamsterjill]

1. K&R

Good!

[Evolve Dammit]

2. He never should have been a confirmed Justice.

[Lovie777]

3. K & R . . .

Although Thomas will refuse to bow out because his GAWD tells him so.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

4. Ok, he's impeached in the House,

now what?

I applaud them for calling for his impeachment, but the stark reality is that he won't be convicted and removed by the Senate, no matter how much he deserves to be removed.

[FBaggins]

21. It wouldn't even get that far

I doubt that even a majority of House Democrats would vote to impeach.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

22. I agree,

I doubt that Speaker Pelosi would even bring it to the floor, she's far to smart for that.

[Jacson6]

5. Ginni Thomas is not the property of Clarence Thomas.

She is her own person and is entitled to advocate for her political views.

[bucolic_frolic]

9. But what if vice versa?

Last edited Fri Mar 25, 2022, 04:23 PM - Edit history (1)

and they're owned by the money that got them where they are? What if their texts indicate belief in the overthrow of democratic elections, of the government itself?

And btw https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216524861

[choie]

20. Right and it's just a coincidence

that thomas was the only justice to vote against trump having to provide January 6th relevant documents to congress. You know: DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD SHOW THAT HIS WIFE TEXTED MARK MEADOWS.

[marie999]

24. Why would Trump have Thomas's wife's texts to Mark Meadows?

[Diamond_Dog]

6. "King of Kings"?

[bucolic_frolic]

7. I think spouses are bound, in many states, by the contracts of each other.

Binding their beliefs together is another thing, unless the texts between them indicate Clarence Thomas has pre-decided cases. Most people would not consider that a good thing for a SCOTUS Justice.

[NYC Liberal]

8. No, we shouldn't impeach someone for the actions of their spouse.

[spooky3]

14. He failed to recuse himself in multiple cases

In which her activities were involved:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/31/ginni-thomas-clarence-thomas-conflict-jan6-committee/

[ProudMNDemocrat]

10. Only if he was complicit in his wife's activities

And there is proof he was.

Proving comiplicity on his part will be hard to prove.

[Deuxcents]

11. What about his judgements n briefs..

Could they be scrutinized?

[thatdemguy]

15. No

There is no mechanism to review what a justice says or does. Except impeachable offenses, and anything they say or write or decide is not impeachable when it deals with cases before them.

The only real retort is another case over riding what they have said before, which is extremely extremely rare. Thats why Roe vs Wade is still the law, they really wont decide against it. But they can be very narrow or broad in a case. Aka the texas case, they can find it narrowly constitutional, with out invalidating Roe vs Wade over all.

Which is what I expect, they wont tear down Roe vs Wade, but the might "define" something with the texas case as constitutional, but not against Roe vs Wade.

[Trueblue1968]

12. WOW!!!!! Josh Marshall @joshtpm ·Hypothetical: Can a Supreme Court Justice credibly carry

Josh Marshall @joshtpm
·
3h
Hypothetical: Can a Supreme Court Justice credibly carry on in office if it is revealed that his spouse was involved in a
coup to overthrow the government?

[2naSalit]

17. THAT is the correct question!

[Polybius]

13. Incredibly ironic of them

Do they think that Ginni is Thomas' property?

[sanatanadharma]

16. So was SC Justice Thomas incredibly ignorant of his wife's work...

So was SC Justice Thomas incredibly ignorant of his wife's work...

Or is he guilty of knowing and saying nothing about a plot to overturn 200-plus years of USA Constitutional peaceful transfer of power history?

Is he a fool or a tool?

[paleotn]

18. He was the only desenting vote

in the ruling over Trump turning over White House documents. Even "I like beer" and "the Handmaid" didn't side with him.

[Cha]

19. Rt💕🤷‍♂️TY!

💙💛

[Warpy]

23. Um, no, sad to say

Had Silent Cal himself been shooting his mouth off, then there might be a reason to impeach. That is not the case.

His wife is a hard line lunatic with a big mouth and has been for years. That's protected under the first amendment.

Yes, he's one of the worst USSC (in)justices this country has ever had. Unfortunately, we're stuck with him until he retires or kicks the bucket.