• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clarence Thomas accuser calls for his impeachment - CBS News today

More like "he said/THEY say" moment. Eyewitness testimony gains credibility each time it is corroborated

It depends really. If 100 people really do lie about you, does that make them correct? I'm not saying one way or the other because I haven't studied the situation in this case very much.

No, but Congress will not remain republican forever

True, but I think congress (if they want to protect their seats) are going to need solid compelling evidence to impeach and I don't think a he said/They said will do that alone.
 
Oh stop it, you know damn well congress was playing games with the seat. Yes, legally congress can do that, but it doesn't make it any less slimy. I'm sure you will support the dems (if in control of both houses) doing that Trump if he gets another chance to pick a SCOTUS member correct?

So you are not going to read the constitution got it.
It depends on the situation.

They can't really do that anymore as well the nuclear option has been used.
In any event if it is the last few months of his presidency then i expect they would default and wait as is custom to do.

However dem's will have little way to block the nomination now.
once the cap is off the cap is off and it is impossible to put it back on.
 
So you are not going to read the constitution got it.
It depends on the situation.

They can't really do that anymore as well the nuclear option has been used.
In any event if it is the last few months of his presidency then i expect they would default and wait as is custom to do.

However dem's will have little way to block the nomination now.
once the cap is off the cap is off and it is impossible to put it back on.

First of all, learn to read instead of just typing first. I never said it wasn't legal, I said it was slimy. Just because something is constitutional doesn't mean it isn't slimy.

Last few months? Obama was 9 months to leaving when your Republicans played their games. When the dems gain control they can push it back a few months and do it to Trump. Unless you are a hypocrite, you would support it.
 
No, what you meant to say is that Thomas does what you want him to do, not his actual job. At least admit that.

Well, I want him to follow the Constitution, so yes, he does what I want him to do. I think it is ridiculous that that can't be said about even one other member of the court, let alone 3 or 4, depending on which way the wind is blowing. That is their job, very simple task. Anyone that can't do it, especially in the big cases, should be off the court.

Scalia was famous for saying his rulings were not what he wanted, but what the Constitution dictated. Sad that they all don't have that type of courage.
 
Last few months? Obama was 9 months to leaving when your Republicans played their games. When the dems gain control they can push it back a few months and do it to Trump. Unless you are a hypocrite, you would support it.

Yep i don't see an issue with that either. YOu still fail to understand that the seat did not belong to obama.
The seat belongs to the american people. So again you can't steal something that was not yours.

as for your last statement i have already answered it your failure to read is not my issue. i am not going to repeat myself.
 
Yep i don't see an issue with that either. YOu still fail to understand that the seat did not belong to obama.
The seat belongs to the american people. So again you can't steal something that was not yours.

as for your last statement i have already answered it your failure to read is not my issue. i am not going to repeat myself.

Cool, so when the Dems do it to Trump and the Dem president elected will get to pick the SCOTUS member, you won't be talking negatively about it. Saving this post for later when it happens.
 
Well, I want him to follow the Constitution, so yes, he does what I want him to do. I think it is ridiculous that that can't be said about even one other member of the court, let alone 3 or 4, depending on which way the wind is blowing. That is their job, very simple task. Anyone that can't do it, especially in the big cases, should be off the court.

Scalia was famous for saying his rulings were not what he wanted, but what the Constitution dictated. Sad that they all don't have that type of courage.

The court has gotten so far out of whack that it is almost unconstitutional now.
why?

The constitution gives the people the right to address their government except for the SC.

But in the past 35 years, the Court has made it clear through custom and then through a rules change last year, that only lawyers are allowed to appear before the Justices.

In July 2013, the Court said it had updated the official Rules of the Court to make it clear that only attorneys are allowed to argue cases.

“Oral arguments may be presented only by members of the Bar of this Court,” says Rule 28.8. Exceptions can be made for other attorneys under another rule to argue pro hac vice (which means in Latin “for this occasion").

this by right is a violation of the constitution. It is 100% a persons right to represent themselves in any court that would include the SCOTUS.
 
First of all, learn to read instead of just typing first. I never said it wasn't legal, I said it was slimy. Just because something is constitutional doesn't mean it isn't slimy.

Last few months? Obama was 9 months to leaving when your Republicans played their games. When the dems gain control they can push it back a few months and do it to Trump. Unless you are a hypocrite, you would support it.

Yeah, and when Bush had 19 months left, Chuckie Schumer said they would refuse to put through any SC nominees from that point on. Remember that? Nope, you didn't.

Sen. Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.

Schumer in 2007: Don't confirm any Bush Supreme Court nominee

"We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances," Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in prepared remarks to the American Constitution Society, a liberal legal organization.
 
Yeah, and when Bush had 19 months left, Chuckie Schumer said they would refuse to put through any SC nominees from that point on. Remember that? Nope, you didn't.

Yet they did, so your point is moot.
 
Health reasons/age would be the best chance to get rid of her. Unfortunately for women, it is the women on the court that need to go. They don't seem to realize that the Constitution is not optional when deciding cases. Maybe one of them will slip on a banana peel.

Wishing physical harm on SCOTUS judges. Classy. You remind me of the idiots who said they hoped Dick Cheney suffered a heart attack.
 
Pardon me, but maybe you are a Republican after all. I was sure you were not. My bad.

Don't beat yourself up over it. It's not like its the first completely ignorant mistake you've made here.
 
I read and re-read that article. I can't see where it says she accused him at the time. I see she refers to herself as an "uncalled witness". What does that even mean?

Is there a record of her accusing him of these actions at the time he purportedly committed them or not? Did she call the police, tell co-workers, etc.? I can't find that anywhere. If she didn't, she can't come out 30 years later and say this now.

THE THOMAS NOMINATION; CONFLICT EMERGES OVER A 2D WITNESS
By ADAM CLYMER,
Published: October 11, 1991

Senator Alan K. Simpson, a Wyoming Republican on the panel who is a Thomas supporter, said he had seen Ms. Wright's deposition and did not regard it as significant.​
 
Some people have no interest in hiding, they want to joust with the best of the best, because it is all about being the best of the best.

Yes but bottom feeders get the scraps.
 
It depends really. If 100 people really do lie about you, does that make them correct? I'm not saying one way or the other because I haven't studied the situation in this case very much.

probably

True, but I think congress (if they want to protect their seats) are going to need solid compelling evidence to impeach and I don't think a he said/They said will do that alone.

Multiple eyewitness testimony is often found to be compelling
 
More leftist fairy tales. Justice Thomas stands about as much chance of being impeached as Trump does getting positive coverage by the communist media.

You obviously can't be taken seriously
 
I just hope that that old bird, leftist, anti Constitution, ACLU lawyer Ginsberg will step down soon. We need to get people like her, that don't do their job, off the court. Thomas is one of the few that do a decent job, most of the time.

I'm curious what if a supreme court member becomes severely disabled say a stoke or obviously dementia, do they stay on the court even
in that condition because it's a lifelong appointment or is there a way to replace. As I remember reading somewhere Wilson had a stroke
was disabled & his wife had a lot to do with hiding that from the public & she became as powerful as anyone for a period of time.

This Ginsberg doesn't seem all that fit to me!
 
I'm curious what if a supreme court member becomes severely disabled say a stoke or obviously dementia, do they stay on the court even
in that condition because it's a lifelong appointment or is there a way to replace. As I remember reading somewhere Wilson had a stroke
was disabled & his wife had a lot to do with hiding that from the public & she became as powerful as anyone for a period of time.

This Ginsberg doesn't seem all that fit to me!

Ruth Vader Ginsburg shouldn't be allowed to drive a car yet she's capable of deciding important judicial decisions?!
 
She claims isn't what I'm asking. I asked if there was a record of her coming out then with these charges. I admittedly could have missed it. That's why I asked.

While I didn't ultimately believe Anita Hill, her claims were within a few years of it happening (when she said it happened), and when he was a SCOTUS nominee. This claim strikes me as odd with its timing.

This is the first I heard of this. So, all I know is what has been posted in this thread.
 

Well I know well over 100 people said Obama was a Muslim. Sorry but I don't believe them.

Multiple eyewitness testimony is often found to be compelling

I doubt it would be compelling enough for impeachment. I'm just saying I wouldn't bet the farm on that at all.
 
Wishing physical harm on SCOTUS judges. Classy. You remind me of the idiots who said they hoped Dick Cheney suffered a heart attack.

You should try to acquire a sense of humor at some point. The banana peel joke has been tried and true for decades, from movies to cartoons, it's been one of the all time greats. Just picture Ruth Buzzy taking s Brodie on perfectly placed peel!
 
Thomas is a waste of a chair on the Supreme Court. It would be no big loss if he were gone.
 
Ruth Vader Ginsburg shouldn't be allowed to drive a car yet she's capable of deciding important judicial decisions?!

Yet even at her advanced age....she is still smarter and has more brain function than most of the others.
 
Back
Top Bottom