Clearance Thomas bucks Judicial Norms.
- Thread starter Vakarian74
- Start date
This is a pretty serious conflict of interest, and between this and Ginni Thomas' January 6th activities casts some pretty serious doubts on how impartial this court has become.
He’s always been the worst justice IMO but this type of stuff shouldn’t happen at all. I know it does but it shouldn’t.
HacklemanPoke
Deputy
I am far from a clearance Thomas fan but man this is a road really far to me. Is what he did a high crime or misdemeanor? I don’t know what the law says about failure to report these gifts. Also does it go against the good behavior clause? Probably but that is really a road I don’t think we should go down unless we’re talking seriously bad behavior and to be honest I don’t know where to set the bar on that. I mean there are some obvious starters but in today’s climate I think this would escalate really fast.
With that being typed, if he committed a crime then the appropriate punishment should follow.
It surprise me that after your comments on the trump threads you think Thomas should be impeached and removed. You talk about both sides then gearing up. Wow.
Last edited:
I have been a pharmacist now for 35 years. I have had a pen in my pocket as a pharmacist for 35 years. In 35 years I have never once had a drug company pen in my pocket. I have never accepted any kind of gratuity from Pharma that I didn't repay with in kind labor (i.e. give a talk). And I have never given a pharma sponsored talk that I didn't exclusively control the content of the talk. I have accepted grants from pharma for research, but the research design has been 100% my own, even all the way back to my fellowship project (though the idea was my fellowship director's). Why have I been so fastidious about this? Because I have been on P&T committees and been in positions to influence the purchase of millions of dollars of pharmaceuticals. I've also been in the position to influence prescribing and treatment of patients bother directly as a prescriber and indirectly as a consultant. And in none of those positions did I want to give any appearance of impropriety or that I was influenced inappropriately in any way by pharma or anything other than clinical science and what is best for patients.
Given what we know about Clarence Thomas can he say that he is without any appearance of political impropriety or influence?
I am bitterly disappointed in Thomas. This is at best an ethical violation, at worst it is criminal (tax evasion among other things). I say again, I stand with AOC on impeachment.
Given what we know about Clarence Thomas can he say that he is without any appearance of political impropriety or influence?
I am bitterly disappointed in Thomas. This is at best an ethical violation, at worst it is criminal (tax evasion among other things). I say again, I stand with AOC on impeachment.
We will have to impeach every one on the court then.
No, we won't. The rest of them hold very closely to their professional ethics. They refuse gifts, or if they accept them they disclose them and pay taxes on them. This isn't all that difficult, certainly no more difficult than my going 35 years without a pharma pen in my pocket. Don't accept gifts from big time donors without full disclosure. Period.
For what? Cite specific examples.
You know that’s not his style.
Stillwater Townie
Ranger
Ha, I feel nearly all Republicans in Congress would disagree to that as popular as he is with them. Thomas would have to first do something far more outrageous, such as taking bribes to rule in favor of cases that Republicans were opposed to. Corruption rules in DC more than it ever did.
It simply isn't true.
For once, Townie, I agree with you. Which is why our politics is in a death spiral.
Got to have some vacancies before he can appoint anyone, so yeah......gonna be a problem.
I was under the assumption that Biden need only get Senate approval to appoint judges. Might not be politically expedient, but possible. The Republicans have played long and loose with the Supremes over and a over. Now even they have been gerrymandered IMO
Your assumption is absolutely incorrect.
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.'
Judiciary Act (statute) of 1869 set the number of Supreme Court justices at 9 and has never been amended since then. To add justices to SCOTUS would require:;
1. A change in the law being made and signed by Biden (which has zero possibility of happening), and then;
2. 2/3 approval of the Senate for any particular appointment (which has essentially zero chance of happening with a particularly progressive Justice even if there was a spot open).
