By: Jim Hoover
Clarence Thomas should be impeached for a number of offenses, crimes and misdemeanors.
Article III, Section 1 states that judges of federal courts shall hold their offices “during good behavior.” The phrase “good behavior” has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness ‘high crimes and misdemeanors” involves[i].
Supreme Court Justices need to be beyond reproach, considering that they make life and death decisions affecting millions of Americans. A democracy requires equal treatment under the law but if those who interpret the law are not subject to the laws they interpret, how can average Americans trust that the system is fair and that decisions rendered by these judges are impartial?
Let’s start with the federal crime of which Clarence is guilty. It is a felony to make false statements to a government agency. This Clarence Thomas did by not reporting on financial disclosure forms almost $700,000 his wife earned over a five year period (2003-2007). Federal judges are required by law to disclose “spousal non-investment income,” but Clarence Thomas checked “none” for the years in question.
His prosecution for this crime is not being considered, for his statement that it was a five year oversight was accepted without comment or investigation.
The payments to Clarence’s wife, Virginia Thomas, came from the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, which supports her activist public cause against President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Clarence Thomas will soon rule on the constitutionality of this same law which requires Americans to sign up for health care insurance.
This is an obvious conflict of interest, but there is no sign that Justice Thomas will recuse himself.
In the same vein, Thomas did not recuse himself regarding the Citizens United ruling on January 21, 2010 in which he voted with a 5 to 4 majority allowing unlimited spending by corporations to influence elections. This followed political meetings with the billionaire Koch brothers who sought such a ruling and profited by it.
Thomas attended a political retreat for wealthy conservatives 3 years ago, a group which advocated changing campaign finance laws. When Common Cause raised questions about the retreat several months ago, a court spokeswoman said that Thomas had made a “brief drop-by” at the event in Palm Springs, California in January of 2008. His financial disclosure report for that year reported that the Federalist Society, a prominent conservative legal group, had reimbursed him for four days of “transportation, meals and accommodations” over the weekend of this retreat.
If the “brief drop-by” is the truth, one might assume they overpaid him. If it is not, then he either lied to cover up his strong political affiliation or has a bad memory. Once again, is this lie considered criminal, a public breach of faith, or an ethics deficiency?
Getting back to Thomas’s Citizens United ruling a year ago, the ruling had a profound impact on the 2010 midterm election, seeing corporate interests spend tens of millions of dollars for conservative candidates, almost all Republicans. Much of spending was not disclosed and could in no way be matched by unions or by individual donors. There was even proof that foreign interests provided millions of dollars to defeat progressive causes through the American Chamber of Commerce.
The most recent disclosure of Thomas’ shady dealings came from a New York Times report a few day ago. Harlan Crowe, a real estate magnate and a close friend of Thomas, who once gave Thomas’ wife $500,000 for Liberty Central, is now financing a multimillion-dollar restoration of an old Georgia cannery where Thomas’ mother once worked, at Thomas’ request.
Life-appointed Supreme Court Justices who openly cater to rich vested interests, is not what the Constitution intended to give us. They are gifts to plutocrats provided by conservative presidents that just keep giving.
Democrats have – for the most part — meekly accepted radical right-wing Republican appointments to the Supreme Court. Democrats have allowed people with questionable ethics and motives to serve on our federal courts, justices like Thomas, Roberts, Scalia and Alito, and have stood by, allowing a few Republican Senators to permanently block reasonable choices for federal courts by Obama, tactics designed to fill all federal courts with radical right-wing judges.
This is another battle progressives will lose if they continue to be out-thugged and intimidated by conservative forces. These same conservative judges will stand against radical laws passed at the state level like Florida Governor Rick Scott’s requirement for public workers to be drug-tested, something contested by the ACLU.
We turned our eyes away from the criminality of the Bush regime and Wall Street.
Are we going to do the same regarding thuggish tactics of Republicans and corrupt Supreme Court justices like Clarence Thomas?
Tuo11
21 Jun 2011I’m glad I now have permission to oppose an African American office holder’s political positions without being called racist.
tsudo pop
22 Jun 2011I don’t know anyone that would look at it that way. It kind of seems axiomatic that you are a racist because of that statement. Most non-racist people would look at it as another guy with a little bit of power using it like Napolean and going the corrupt path. But then you have bring in his race like it’s the only reason he should be impeached. Stick to the argument Tuo11. Clarence Thomas is a corrupt being not because he’s black, but because he has his hand so far down so many people’s pocket that he couldn’t make a legitimate, objective ruling even if he tried.
Tuo11
22 Jun 2011Perhaps my sarcasm was lost in translation. As a Libertarian I view everyone as an individual. I have my own criticisms of the Honorable Clarence Thomas, but only when I criticize President Barrack Obama is it implied that race is involved. I find that extremely odd.
tsudo pop
23 Jun 2011It’s odd and not that odd. I don’t know if you’re either an Atlanta citizen or familiar with the politics of Atlanta, but either way the city of Atlanta elected it’s first black mayor back in ’74. It was a tremendous achievment, since Atlanta was still a geographically and stereotypically Southern, and thus was considered a great breakthrough in race relations not only in Atlanta but America as well. But there was only one problem: how well could a black mayor do when a majority of the resources were still controlled by a relatively laissez-faire racist business elite that trumped up charges of reverse racism against Jackson–charges that turned out to be falsified for the purpose of promoting a specific agenda against Jackson. But Jackson was and wasn’t an individual. Granted, objectively he was, but in the grand scheme of things he was turned into a symbol. And thus the battle of racism in Atlanta and Georgia, and arguably the entire South, rested on Jackson succeeding. The same thing goes with Obama. Yeah, he’s an individual. Why you have a problem with his presidency makes no sense, because he has significantly corrected the atrocities committed by the Bush administration’s blatant abuses of individual civil liberties, but Obama’s presidency most flagrantly represents a symbol in our nation’s ability to progress. Look at a picture book of every president’s picture. We have a long line of very white, affluent presidents. The most radical difference in that entire list first came with Kennedy being the first Catholic president, and people were outraged, thinking it would be the end of separation of church and state. I don’t believe that if you disagree with Obama then you should be instantly recognized as a racist…so long as your reasons are legitimate, and not spurious generalities that you read on the internet. But I think you should realize that Obama’s presidency, for a lot of people, especially minorities, represents a future in which the prospects of them eventually becoming president instead of a whole bunch of rich white guys looks better and better each day.
Jeff
23 Jun 2011Great editorial! Just one thing–don’t forget about the attack ads against Thomas detractors during the confirmation hearings, paid for by Citizens United. This goes back 20 years! Here’s a link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973826,00.html
Tuo11
23 Jun 2011I find it dangerous for people to be told Obama has done anything to correct the infringements on individual liberty put in place by Bush. The fact that The Patriot Act has been voted for once again is proof of that. I hate to bring the discussion away from Clarence Thomas so let me just say that it is a disgrace that the Supreme Court did not strike this law down to begin with.
tsudo pop
23 Jun 2011To say that the Patriot Act is the same as it was back in ’01 in really wrong. While it does just need to be erased completely, it definitely isn’t the same creature, and the Supreme Court has taken actions against it on multiple occassions. But the Patriot Act was only one of many infringements of freedom committed by Bush. There was the amplification of the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, the No Child Left Behind BS, cutting the taxes for the richest 1% in the country, and much, much more. Tie in the fact that it was his father that appointed Clarence Thomas to begin with, and you got a genealogical attack on the freedom of Americans.
Tuo11
25 Jun 2011Well cutting taxes by definition is an enhancement of freedom. The right to the fruits of ones own labor is what makes us free. Not to mention that the Bush Tax cuts were given to everyone, not just the higher earners. Combining lower tax rates with more government was the problem. One that has been made even worse recently.
tsudo pop
29 Jun 2011merely stating that cutting taxes is the end-all-be-all of freedom just rejects and ignores hundreds upon hundreds of years of political and economic study regarding the matter, and grossly simplifies the entire situation. granted, cutting taxes will give a few some freedom, but there certain services that a government needs to provide because there will not be any private investment in them since, more than likely, they won’t warrant a great amount of immediate profit–i.e. education, roads, military, police, firefighters, and other services. yeah, the government can get out of control with it sometimes, but definitely not as much as these tea-party reactionaries who think that the Founding Father’s myth will actually help us as modernity is in a constant state of change. the government does give you the ‘right of your own fruits’, they just concentrate in a more responsible manner than the masses would. fine, you can probably make the right decisions, and if you can, then i applaud you, but find me a society that has ever been able to exist in atomization, which is what you are describing, and i’ll show you how it went to hell in a hand basket real quick.
rudimentary logic dictates that you increase taxes when the economy is good and progressing, and then to alleviate taxes slightly when shit hits the fan like it did in the recession. but no, for the past fifty years taxes have steadily decreased despite whether or not the economy was good or bad, and thus we end up in a situation where there’s no money in bank, and nothing can be financed. the only reason we didn’t end up like certain countries like Greece, was because we have the international reserves, thus connecting our economy with every other countries’ economy, so that no one can allow us to fail unless they want to fail as well.
i know there’s those people that just hear the word ‘taxes’ and they run for the hills. but it’s never made any sense, if you realy look at it. taxes inevitably benefit the good of a community, and the good of the community eventually benefits the good of the individual living in that community. look at some of the best regarded cities in America right now, and then look at how much taxes they are paying. on a general basis, they pay their taxes. that’s not an unrelated correlation. those communities that pay their taxes will profit from the invest they make in their community.
Tuo11
3 Jul 2011If an argument against freedom resonates these days, then my cause truly is lost. Unfortunately for you, I believe most Americans believe that people are entitled to their earnings. Simply another obstacle to the liberal leviathan.
tsudo pop
4 Jul 2011I don’t believe at one moment I argued against freedom. I just have a better interpretation of what it means. And yeah, most people would probably agree with you, and that’s why we’re in a recession. Taxes have been going further and further down, not once going up for the past fifty years, and yet it still created the economic mess that we’re in. Perhaps it’s time to do something slightly different.