Why Clarence Thomas is a clear-cut case for impeachment from the Supreme Court

[marmar]

Why Clarence Thomas is a clear-cut case for impeachment from the Supreme Court
It is never too late to do justice

BILL BLUM
NOVEMBER 2, 2020 11:59AM


With the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, the radical right has completed its long and painstaking project to seize control of the Supreme Court, and to reshape constitutional law for generations to come. Barrett's elevation will give conservatives a 6-3 majority on the court and usher in a crisis of legitimacy for the third branch of government not seen since the 1930s.

The right's triumph has prompted anger and soul-searching among Democrats and progressives, sparking calls to expand the number of Supreme Court justices, echoing Franklin D. Roosevelt's unsuccessful effort to add additional seats to the high tribunal in the midst of the Great Depression.

Enlarging the Supreme Court is entirely within the power of Congress, as the number of justices is not set by the Constitution. The court's composition has, in fact, varied over time, ranging from six justices when the Constitution was ratified to 10 in 1863. The panel was reduced to nine by an act of Congress in 1867 and has remained there since then by statute.

While Democrats should definitely demand court expansion if they retake the White House and the Senate and hold the House, there is at least one additional step they should take to address the court's legitimacy crisis—the impeachment of its most corrupt member—Clarence Thomas.

Thomas should be impeached on charges of perjury for allegedly lying in his annual financial disclosure statements for over a decade and, more fundamentally, for lying in his 1991 confirmation hearing about his disgusting history of sexual harassment. ..........(more)

https://www.salon.com/2020/11/02/why-clarence-thomas-is-a-clear-cut-case-for-impeachment-from-the-supreme-court_partner/

[beachbumbob]

1. talk is nonsense without 67 senate votes

[modrepub]

2. I think Senate could get rid the Filibuster

It's the nuclear option for sure. I'd wait and let Roberts and the SC see if they want to stick their necks out and piss the majority people off with some crappy decision. Roosevelt ultimately didn't need to expand the court because public opinion mades some justices have a change of heart opposing the New Deal.

[beachbumbob]

3. fillibuster has nothing to do with impeachment

[lagomorph777]

4. Correct. 2/3 vote for impeachment is in the Constitution. Filibuster is just a Senate self-defined

rule.