New York Magazine: Do You Believe Her Now? It’s time to reexamine the evidence that Clarence Thomas lied to get onto the Supreme Court — and to talk seriously about impeachment.

[PeterMP]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/the-case-for-impeaching-clarence-thomas.html

 

I heard about this a while ago, but it seems to be getting some traction.  Essentially, the argument is there is enough information and witnesses out there to argue that Thomas lied under oath about his familiarity with things like pornography and his history with women during his conformation process and that should be an impeachable offense.  To my knowledge, there are no records (e.g. nobody has a receipt from video store showing that Clarence Thomas rented a particular pornographic movie in the time before his testimony) so it would all be just witnesses and his old testimony.

 

Obviously, you'd need to have an clear majority of Democrats in the House and the Senate, which isn't likely to happen in 2018 so you'd be waiting to 2020 any way, when Democrats hope to have a Democratic President.

 

(Some people especially seem to think this is deserved as the Scalia seat was "stolen" from Democrats.)

 

Could we see an attempt to impeach a Supreme Court Justice as a result of Metoo?

 

(Seemed big enough for its own thread as people are talking about impeaching a Supreme Court justice vs. being thrown in with the rest of the sexual harassment stuff.)

[justice98]

I dont think people actually didnt believe her.  They just put their interest in getting Thomas on the court above doing the right thing.  Kinda like how Trump got so many votes.

[Predicto]

It's not going to happen.  It was too long ago, and there is no smoking gun that suddenly was unearthed.  The Democrats would be insane to even try, because it would come across as a 100% political witch hunt, the media would explode on them, and they would lose the mushy middle voters in droves. 

 

Only the GOP can get away with 100 percent partisan crap, because their voters don't trust the media and don't care if what they do is unfair and shameless.  And they control their message from the top in a way that the Democrats are completely incapable of doing.

[Predicto]

14 minutes ago, justice98 said:

I dont think people actually didnt believe her.  They just put their interest in getting Thomas on the court above doing the right thing.  Kinda like how Trump got so many votes.

 

 

Many people actually did not believe her.  She got smeared very effectively by David Brock and others, she was not given a chance to defend herself, and the all-male leadership in Congress failed to call any corroborating witnesses (because she wasn't the nominee).  So they rushed through the vote, and it was over.  

 

The broad cultural understanding of the dynamics of sexual harassment and the things women must put up with to protect their careers that we men only are starting to understand now, was almost non-existent three decades ago.  When people stated yelling that she must have made up the story because she hadn't spoken up before, that made sense to millions of people, including many old white guys in the Senate. 

[LadySkinsFan]

I and many women I associated with believed her. Because we knew then what workplaces were like for women and male power.

 

I will never forgive Biden as one of the ones who was pushing Thomas and the vote on him. 

 

I don't want any attention on him because we know how he always votes and almost never writes opinions. I don't want him replaced by an even more right wing justice who might write opinions.

[PleaseBlitz]

Yea, can't see this going anywhere.  

[PeterMP]

31 minutes ago, Predicto said:

 

 

Many people actually did not believe her.  She got smeared very effectively by David Brock and others, she was not given a chance to defend herself, and the all-male leadership in Congress failed to call any corroborating witnesses (because she wasn't the nominee).  So they rushed through the vote, and it was over.  

 

The broad cultural understanding of the dynamics of sexual harassment and the things women must put up with to protect their careers that we men only are starting to understand now, was almost non-existent three decades ago.  When people stated yelling that she must have made up the story because she hadn't spoken up before, that made sense to millions of people, including many old white guys in the Senate. 

 

The other thing (that is generally important) is that she was the only that was brought forward to testify (for various reasons).  But based on my recollection that wasn't largely reported.  My memory was there was a sense of, if he really did it, there would be other people too.

 

Which is an argument you still see pushed today in these cases (and I'm not sure it isn't unreasonable).

39 minutes ago, Predicto said:

It's not going to happen.  It was too long ago, and there is no smoking gun that suddenly was unearthed.  The Democrats would be insane to even try, because it would come across as a 100% political witch hunt, the media would explode on them, and they would lose the mushy middle voters in droves. 

 

Only the GOP can get away with 100 percent partisan crap, because their voters don't trust the media and don't care if what they do is unfair and shameless.  And they control their message from the top in a way that the Democrats are completely incapable of doing.

 

You seem to be saying 2 things:

 

1.  It won't happen.

 

2.  The Democrats would be stupid to try.

 

I'm not sure evidence supporting 2 is actual evidence of 1.  We can say it would be crazy, but I'm not sure there won't be an effort.

 

15 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I and many women I associated with believed her. Because we knew then what workplaces were like for women and male power.

 

I will never forgive Biden as one of the ones who was pushing Thomas and the vote on him. 

 

I don't want any attention on him because we know how he always votes and almost never writes opinions. I don't want him replaced by an even more right wing justice who might write opinions.

 

I think the key is they'd wait until Democrats were in firm control (assuming that happens in 2020) and therefore you'd be relatively ensured to be able to appoint somebody more moderate.

[LadySkinsFan]

There were other women and if I recall correctly they wouldn't testify after what happened to Anita Hill. Also, it was important to the Senate to rush the hearings pronto and get the vote done.

 

I don't like the way the judiciary is skewing way right. It doesn't bode well for human beings.

[PeterMP]

7 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

There were other women and if I recall correctly they wouldn't testify after what happened to Anita Hill. Also, it was important to the Senate to rush the hearings pronto and get the vote done.

 

I don't like the way the judiciary is skewing way right. It doesn't bode well for human beings.

 

If you read the story, Biden agreed early in the process to limit things to his work behavior, and at least one of other people was not somebody he worked with so wasn't relevant to his work behavior (and for whatever reason, Biden stuck to the pre-hearings agreement).

[DogofWar1]

I often chastised the right for blowing Clinton's adulterous indiscretions out of proportion and not being able to let it go.

 

I do not believe Clarence Thomas would become a justice if he were nominated today.

 

That being said, to impeach him at this stage for the alleged sexual matters is petty.  It would open the door to reexamining every justice every time the winds changed.

 

The conflicts of interest he gets through his wife are of greater concern to me at this point.

 

This is not to minimize the sexual issues present.  But I think we also need to recognize that due process is important and part of due process are things like double jeopardy and speedy trial (queue people citing exceptions).  Even if we give him due process and then impeach him, it would forever change the face of the judiciary.

 

I think there should be wide acknowledgement that Thomas would not have been successful today and just drive that point home, and allow that fact to forever taint his tenure.  To do more essentially codifies activity no matter how long after the fact and I think that opens more cans of worms than worth it.

[PleaseBlitz]

It will be fun in 2020 to see Biden run against Trump and the false equivalence being that Trump has been credibly accused by a dozen women of actually harassing women, caught on tape bragging about it in the coarsest possible terms and all of his other proclivities with women .... but Biden once didn't take a hard enough stance in the trial of a harasser.  So it's a wash.  

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Yes, do it. Crush the GOP.

[zoony]

I think we should take another look at the evidence against ted kennedy, too.  Also, loved how Paula Jones was dismissed.  Wait, theyre democrats, nevermind.

 

You guys are straight up partisan hacks nowadays, its pretty pathetic.

[skinsmarydu]

14 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

 

The conflicts of interest he gets through his wife are of greater concern to me at this point.

This. 

I met his mother years ago, she worked in a hospital in Savannah. I just couldn't bring myself to crush her son in public, but to say that I wanted to would be the understatement of a lifetime. 

[PleaseBlitz]

1 hour ago, zoony said:

I think we should take another look at the evidence against ted kennedy, too.  Also, loved how Paula Jones was dismissed.  Wait, theyre democrats, nevermind.

 

You guys are straight up partisan hacks nowadays, its pretty pathetic.

 

I think the OP is a staunch Republican and all the people saying nah, myself, dogofwar and Predicto, are Dems.  So who does that make the partisan hacks?

[AsburySkinsFan]

America has moved on from sex in politics. Trump got elected after all his antics, no one is going to impeach Thomas for this. Spend the energy on Trump.

[twa]

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I think the OP is a staunch Republican and all the people saying nah, myself, dogofwar and Predicto, are Dems.  So who does that make the partisan hacks?

 

Ya'll of course .....you are just trying to protect the Dems from the cliff.

[PleaseBlitz]

6 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Ya'll of course .....you are just trying to protect the Dems from the cliff.

 

 

It’s too early for your jibberish. 

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, zoony said:

I think we should take another look at the evidence against ted kennedy, too.  Also, loved how Paula Jones was dismissed.  Wait, theyre democrats, nevermind.

 

You guys are straight up partisan hacks nowadays, its pretty pathetic.

 

Isn't Ted Kennedy dead?  And Clinton was impeached and is no longer in office.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I think the OP is a staunch Republican and all the people saying nah, myself, dogofwar and Predicto, are Dems.  So who does that make the partisan hacks?

 

And even if the first part was true, I didn't write the article, and it isn't like NY magazine has a history of leaning right.

[twa]

35 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

 

It’s too early for your jibberish. 

 

Kids today....

[LD0506]

You're never going to remove Thomas, that idea is just dumb.

 

You CAN bring Anita Hill back in the light of #MeToo etc. as an example of exactly what and why, #PreToo, this is what they've been talking about forever, redeem her public reputation, throw a spotlight on the process that allows this to continue.

 

And TBH, I have zero issue with any and all Dems getting their skeletons hauled out into the daylight too. This has always been a transcendent issue, both sides have worked to stifle victims and hide their actions, pilfer taxpayer dollars to pay off and shutup anyone that might ding their rep.

 

I have been bangin' the drum for a long time, if cops want to redeem their rep and respect in communities then they have to start with themselves. Same thing applies to politicians. If you want to wag a finger in my face make sure you haven't been pickin your nose with it first.

[PleaseBlitz]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

And even if the first part was true, I didn't write the article, and it isn't like NY magazine has a history of leaning right.

 

Oh the article for sure sounds like it was written by someone on the lunatic fringe of the left. However, the left has not yet been totally consumed by their fringe like the right has. 

[PeterMP]

6 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Oh the article for sure sounds like it was written by someone on the lunatic fringe of the left. However, the left has not yet been totally consumed by their fringe like the right has. 

 

The Republican "fringe" would support impeaching somebody over clearly falsified evidence of guilt or evidence that would support special prosecution of a specific crime that would have resulted in the prosecution of other people (e.g. singling out Hillary when it is clear that other people in similar positions have most likely received classified information on non-government non-secured systems).

 

To my knowledge, that isn't the case here.

[PleaseBlitz]

The R fringe would support impeaching anyone that Trump tells them to, regardless of all other factors. Im not going to defend Thomas’ alleged behavior, but the politics of impeaching him suck for the Dems, as @Predicto correctly noted. Plus he’s like 70, by the time Dems take power again, he’ll be approaching the end of his tenure.