Why Isn't Clarence Thomas Facing Impeachment Hearings?
The disgraceful Supreme Court justice should be held accountable for his actions but probably won't.
The disgraceful Supreme Court justice should be held accountable for his actions but probably won't.
You're viewing a single thread.
Cause he's doing his job well and accurately, according to the text of the constitution itself?
You know that thing the left likes to pretend doesn't exist?
"The left" aka the rest of the developed world, but OK boss. Ignore the cartoonishly obvious corruption. I guess justices can just accept huge gifts from whoever, business before the court or not. Because it's not specifically called out in the constitution it's all good! Ethics is canceled, we can all go home. Cool, cool.
justices can just accept huge gifts from whoever
Right up until some kindergartner gives Jackson a hand drawn picture of a rainbow and Tucker Carlson has an aneurysm over it.
Could you explain to me how taking bribes from people he is presiding over is doing his job “well and accurately”? Founding fathers would have kicked him out a long time ago
The founding fathers wouldn't have let him off the plantation, but I get what you're saying.
As usual, the conservative chimes in with a comment utterly ignorant of the issues at hand.
The constitution has nothing to do with this; it's about ethics violations. Educate yourself.
When the facts are everywhere, how can you say that.
bootlicker spotted
unless this is 4d sarcasm but i doubt once you mention Ze lEfT
Article II section 4 of the constitution
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
That seems like a part of the constitution he isn't upholding
Maybe if you read the constitution you'd understand what's going on.
Yeah but that only applies to the libs. Obviously. And I'm sure they've done much worse. The constitution doesn't matter.
Speaking of not thinking the Constitution exists:
Trump should not be able to run for president based on the disqualification clause of the 14th amendment because of the insurrection.
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Other things of note: 'In early 2016, Trump again had gutting the First Amendment in view, this time wanting to “open up the libel laws” to infringe on the freedom of the press. That summer, he vowed to protect articles of the Constitution that do not exist. In 2017, he said constitutional checks and balances that required him to share power with Congress are a “very rough” and “archaic” system, which is “a really bad thing for the country.” That fall, he said asserting Fifth Amendment rights is proof of guilt. In 2018, he floated unilaterally ending birthright citizenship in violation of the 14th Amendment.
In 2019, Trump repeatedly claimed Article II of the Constitution gave him “the right to do whatever I want.” The same year, he argued he should be able to abuse national emergency declarations to expand his own power beyond constitutional boundaries because Democrats would do the same thing if given the chance. In 2020, he reportedly expressed interest in declaring martial law though the constitutional preconditions for it, per Ex parte Milligan (1866), had not been met. And just last month, he called for executing drug dealers after a two-hour trial modeled on communist China’s justice system, a blatant rejection of constitutional due process. By the standard of many of his Republican supporters, even Trump’s record on the Second Amendment falls short."
@TomTheGeek - interesting perspective. Do you care to support it beyond your initial comment? You've got a lot of opposition.