PDA

View Full Version : The Impeachment Of Clarence Thomas' Credibility



Qtec
03-03-2011, 04:28 AM
Maddow makes the case. (http://crooksandliars.com/cliff-schecter/impeachment-clarence-thomas-credibi)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps you're familiar with Clarence Thomas, the Long-Dong-Silver-loving US Supreme Court Justice. With a new term recently beginning on The Court, he passed the five-year mark for not only saying nothing of value while hearing cases, but nothing at all.

Yes, you read that correctly--while no US Supreme Court Justice in over two centuries has gone even a single term without speaking from the bench during arguments, Thomas has managed to do it for five in a row.

To quote Stephen Colbert, "the man is a rock...in that he could be replaced by a rock and I'm not sure anyone would notice." </div></div>


LOL

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yet, in only the past few weeks, a number of embarrassing episodes have not only turned this legal tracheotomy into a punch line for late night comics, but have quite honestly raised questions about whether any fully-functioning democracy would allow him to continue rendering judgments so important in deciding not only the law, but values of our society.

First, there was the fact that Thomas, whose wife has earned almost $700,000 for--as far as I can tell--being his wife, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>finds government disclosure forms so difficult to fill out that he accidentally put $0 where $700,000 was supposed to be under "spousal income."</span>

That's right, for a guy who is supposed to decide how to interpret our Constitution, apparently reporting the bounty his wife pulled in through the right-wing welfare system of think tank stipends and Tea Party activism is somewhat more difficult than making jokes about body hair and coca cola to co-workers of a female persuasion. As this is a family news outlet, you're just going to have to go look up the rest yourself.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'><u>But wait, there's more!</u> As reported over the past week, the good-government group <u>Common Cause has caught ole Clarence in what those in the legal profession might call a "lie."</u></span>

Thomas attended a meeting of wealthy corporate barons on the West Coast, not long before joining his fellow deluded, activist conservative judges in overturning roughly 100 years of settled law to claim that corporations should be able to buy and sell democracy on the free market, like equities or an Emmy.

And as such, these corporate "people" can spend pretty much whatever they want on electioneering, a wonderful little valentine to a republic that is supposed to be defined by "one person, one vote".

The problem, of course, is those wealthy conservatives with whom Thomas ate pigs-in-a-blanket and likely fantasized about replacing the social safety net with breakaway glass stood to directly benefit from these changes to our law, contained in the infamous Citizens United case.

So Thomas went ahead and lied about how much time he spent at that retreat held by the infamous Koch Brothers, the sugar daddies of the supposedly power-to-the-people Tea Party movement. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>While according the The New York Times, "a court spokeswoman said <span style="color: #CC0000">Justice Thomas had made a 'brief drop-by'</span> at the event in Palm Springs, California, in January 2008 and had given a talk," in that darn financial disclosure report that keeps getting him in trouble, <span style="color: #CC0000">Thomas reported that he was reimbursed by the right-wing Federalist Society for having spent <u>"four days" </u></span>at this very same event.

<u>Four days, or a few hours?</u> You say tomato. I say tomahto. </span></div></div>

Nailed.

1. He forgets to mention his wife,s income for 20 years.
2. His wife is a anti-Obamacare lobbyist. Her/Their argument is that its unconstitutional and ultimately the Supreme court will have to decide, ie her husband will have a say!
3. He attended a RW anti-Obamacare, pro-business pow wow and LIED about it.

I'm not even going to mention <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">all the reasons he never should have made it to the Supreme Court in the first place, <u>such as sexually harassing Anita Hill and apparently other young women who've come forward in the years since.</u> </div></div>

There is no way he could be considered impartial.


Q....Impeach

LWW
03-03-2011, 06:09 AM
The high tech lynching continues.

LWW

pooltchr
03-03-2011, 07:08 AM
Thomas is able to hold his tongue when appropriate...a skill Q and G could certainly use!!!

Steve

LWW
03-03-2011, 08:11 AM
IMHO the left simply can't stand it that a brother had the will to escape the plantation and make it to the SCOTUS on his own merits.

LWW

Gayle in MD
03-03-2011, 08:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Maddow makes the case. (http://crooksandliars.com/cliff-schecter/impeachment-clarence-thomas-credibi)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps you're familiar with Clarence Thomas, the Long-Dong-Silver-loving US Supreme Court Justice. With a new term recently beginning on The Court, he passed the five-year mark for not only saying nothing of value while hearing cases, but nothing at all.

Yes, you read that correctly--while no US Supreme Court Justice in over two centuries has gone even a single term without speaking from the bench during arguments, Thomas has managed to do it for five in a row.

To quote Stephen Colbert, "the man is a rock...in that he could be replaced by a rock and I'm not sure anyone would notice." </div></div>


LOL

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yet, in only the past few weeks, a number of embarrassing episodes have not only turned this legal tracheotomy into a punch line for late night comics, but have quite honestly raised questions about whether any fully-functioning democracy would allow him to continue rendering judgments so important in deciding not only the law, but values of our society.

First, there was the fact that Thomas, whose wife has earned almost $700,000 for--as far as I can tell--being his wife, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>finds government disclosure forms so difficult to fill out that he accidentally put $0 where $700,000 was supposed to be under "spousal income."</span>

That's right, for a guy who is supposed to decide how to interpret our Constitution, apparently reporting the bounty his wife pulled in through the right-wing welfare system of think tank stipends and Tea Party activism is somewhat more difficult than making jokes about body hair and coca cola to co-workers of a female persuasion. As this is a family news outlet, you're just going to have to go look up the rest yourself.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'><u>But wait, there's more!</u> As reported over the past week, the good-government group <u>Common Cause has caught ole Clarence in what those in the legal profession might call a "lie."</u></span>

Thomas attended a meeting of wealthy corporate barons on the West Coast, not long before joining his fellow deluded, activist conservative judges in overturning roughly 100 years of settled law to claim that corporations should be able to buy and sell democracy on the free market, like equities or an Emmy.

And as such, these corporate "people" can spend pretty much whatever they want on electioneering, a wonderful little valentine to a republic that is supposed to be defined by "one person, one vote".

The problem, of course, is those wealthy conservatives with whom Thomas ate pigs-in-a-blanket and likely fantasized about replacing the social safety net with breakaway glass stood to directly benefit from these changes to our law, contained in the infamous Citizens United case.

So Thomas went ahead and lied about how much time he spent at that retreat held by the infamous Koch Brothers, the sugar daddies of the supposedly power-to-the-people Tea Party movement. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>While according the The New York Times, "a court spokeswoman said <span style="color: #CC0000">Justice Thomas had made a 'brief drop-by'</span> at the event in Palm Springs, California, in January 2008 and had given a talk," in that darn financial disclosure report that keeps getting him in trouble, <span style="color: #CC0000">Thomas reported that he was reimbursed by the right-wing Federalist Society for having spent <u>"four days" </u></span>at this very same event.

<u>Four days, or a few hours?</u> You say tomato. I say tomahto. </span></div></div>

Nailed.

1. He forgets to mention his wife,s income for 20 years.
2. His wife is a anti-Obamacare lobbyist. Her/Their argument is that its unconstitutional and ultimately the Supreme court will have to decide, ie her husband will have a say!
3. He attended a RW anti-Obamacare, pro-business pow wow and LIED about it.

I'm not even going to mention <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">all the reasons he never should have made it to the Supreme Court in the first place, <u>such as sexually harassing Anita Hill and apparently other young women who've come forward in the years since.</u> </div></div>

There is no way he could be considered impartial.


Q....Impeach </div></div>


Now that they ruled for that idiotic evil Baptist Church, to have the right to degrade Gays, who gave their lives for this country, in the midst of their burrial services, and grieving families, and degrade women....one of their oft used signs reads, "We need More Breast Cancer" ....(I suppose they are too damned stupid to realize that men get breast cancer, too) I can only say, that I am glad I will be legal when I show up at the side drive, into the S.C.Building, with my own signs.

Thomas should be indicted. He has committed a felony.

G.

LWW
03-03-2011, 08:18 AM
So you agree with Justice Alito?

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-03-2011, 03:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMHO the left simply can't stand it that a brother had the will to escape the plantation and make it to the SCOTUS on his own merits.

LWW </div></div>

His own merits????!?!?!

Surely you jest. Affirmative action at its worst for his entire career.

LWW
03-03-2011, 04:17 PM
Elaborate?

Are you implying a black man can't make the court without being advanced unfairly in exchange for selling his soul to the party of the plantation massah?

LWW