The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on April 01, 2022, 08:51:34 AM
-
Star Member DanieRains (4,410 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216550687
How Many Crimes Can Clarence Thomas Commit Before Something Is Done?
Judges are required by law to recuse themselves from anything they, or their spouses have a financial interest in.
That is the law.
Thomas has broken this law repeatedly.
Arrest him.
:whatever:
Star Member Skittles (141,887 posts)
1. alas, it's not considered criminal
perhaps protocol for the Supreme Court needs to be evaluated
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2022/03/29/justice-thomass-failure-to-recuse-may-be-wrong-but-its-not-judicial-misconduct/
of course, Thomas should never have been a judge ANYWHERE, let alone the Supreme Court
:mental:
Star Member DanieRains (4,410 posts)
5. I Think The United State Can Sue Him For Not Recusing
I think there is a case there.
Amishman (4,422 posts)
9. Under what statute?
I believe you would have a hard time finding it.
:popcorn:
Mike Nelson (8,769 posts)
7. Well...
... we don't have the votes to impeach him. That's the consequence. We need 60 votes in the Senate. A good Judge would recuse if there was a question about conflict of interest... just the HINT of one! Clarence Thomas does not fall into that category.
Star Member Kaleva (29,947 posts)
11. You're advocating arresting someone who hasn't broken a law?
Isn't that unlawful or at least morally and ethically bankrupt?
Rincewind (1,143 posts)
12. He got away with it before.
2000, Bush v Gore. Ginny was was working for the W. Bush campaign, and was rumored to be under consideration for a position in any W. Bush administration. Bush being president = money for the Thomas'. He did not recuse, nothing happened to him.
Bernardo de La Paz (41,409 posts)
13. So much disinformation in this thread. Theories of jurisprudence & law presented as if fact... and not as questions or with doubt. Including the OP.
As I understand it, refusal to recuse is not a criminal offense and there is no mechanism to enforce it.
Perhaps there is a mechanism within the judiciary itself. They are honor bound to adhere to their traditions, including recusal.
Can the judiciary eject one of their own? Eject a peer at any same level or below? I don't remember hearing of such a case. It'd be a gruesome precedent when politics are involved.
Star Member SWBTATTReg (17,441 posts)
15. Another ? I have is how many has he committed already? Is every decision that he's participated in,
suspect? They do this when a rogue prosecutor or rogue police officer is ID'ed, and all of the cases they worked on, are subject to redo or being tossed out.
This is another reason why they should expand the Supreme Court, so if and when a situation like this very one occurs, the tainted 'vote' won't inadvertently affect what a normal, fully informed and not being unduly influenced Supreme Court would vote.
How many 4-5 or 5-4 votes have there been, where inappropriate influencing played a role?
MarineCombatEngineer (5,792 posts)
16. What crime are you talking about?
Failure to recuse is not a crime.
lagomorph777 (30,066 posts)
23. Obstruction of justice is an actual crime.
This is not some subtle matter of conscience. This is an attempted coverup.
lagomorph777 (30,066 posts)
21. This is not about recusal. This is about obstruction of justice.
Obstruction of justice is a felony, no matter who you are. Or we do not have the rule of law. Period.
Lots of posters talking about recusal being optional for SCROTUS - missing the point.
"Justice" Thomas committed the crime of obstruction of justice when he attempted to hide the evidence of his wife's crimes. He became an accessory after the fact (at a minimum).
:mental:
-
Look at you dump monkeys, trying to convict a black man of a crime that doesn’t actually exist… I suppose this is the part where I call you all racists. - Because that is *Exactly* what you would do if everything was exactly the same except Justice Thomas was a leftist.
Therefore, I call for the Cancellation of Democratic Underground for conspiratorial actions against a person of color, which can only be rooted in pure racism, as there is no other rational reason why you would insist on convicting a man of crimes that exist nowhere in any location within the USA.
-
Look at you dump monkeys, trying to convict a black man of a crime that doesn’t actually exist… I suppose this is the part where I call you all racists. - Because that is *Exactly* what you would do if everything was exactly the same except Justice Thomas was a leftist.
Therefore, I call for the Cancellation of Democratic Underground for conspiratorial actions against a person of color, which can only be rooted in pure racism, as there is no other rational reason why you would insist on convicting a man of crimes that exist nowhere in any location within the USA.
They love blacks at the DUmp - just as long as they know their place, stay on the plantation, and murmur 'yes Massa' at the appropriate intervals.
-
These sub humans make Stalin look like a Sunday school teacher.
-
Name one DUches.
Oh by the way Oberlin lost their appeal to the Gibson family. That means extra money for the Gibson's expenses and all the interest that was piling up.
Suck it you fat old stupid hippies.
-
"Crimes" located in DUmmies' :stoner: :stoner: :stoner: :stoner: :stoner: aren't really crimes? Who knew?! :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue:
-
Besides the lack of a crime by Justice Thomas, I can’t help but roll my eyes at dems saying “no one is above the law”, or any variation of that expression.
-
Their KKKish nature is showing forth. Ready to string up a black man just because...
-
They're just pissed that Justice Thomas can define 'woman'.
-
This from a bunch of kooks who consider his greatest crime to be he's both black and conservative.
.
-
They're just pissed that Justice Thomas can define 'woman'.
:hi5: !
-
I see Justice Thomas is getting the Trump treatment. "The imaginary crimes are piling up! When will someone do something?"
-
They're just pissed that Justice Thomas can define 'woman'.
Just wait until Justice Thomas announces thru The Babylon Bee that he's IDENTIFYING as a woman this week...
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: