Democrats Seek Criminal Investigation of Justice Thomas

[Rhythmcs]

I didn't say we weren't both American

I will.  They're not american, they just live here.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I didn't say we weren't both American, but nice try at a strawman all the same. I had thought you smarter than this sloppy thinking indicates. Maybe you need to reread what I wrote, this time with an eye towards comprehension:


Now, take your overbroad generalization and stick it up your ass.

I didn't say anything more than the fact that they were your fellow Americans, brothers and countryman. It's your fascist movement because you are American. My fascists are different from your fascists because they don't come from the same culture and political environment. 

So you can take the overbroad generalization you stuck up my ass and then suck on it since you seem to like shit so much. /joke  

PS: Also, in case this isn't clear enough, if you do not know what I am referring to (the essay of Thomas Mann entitled "This Man is My Brother" later retitled "Brother Hitler") you can just say it. Not everybody has read essays from the 40's by German's writers or have it's content fresh in memory.

I wasn't familiar with the essay.

Of course American fascists are Americans. Using the second-person singular in referring to them is not very clear.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I didn't say we weren't both American

I will.  They're not american, they just live here.

Racist Christofascists are as American as apple pie and chattel slavery!

[Dānu]

[epronovost]

I wasn't familiar with the essay.

Of course American fascists are Americans. Using the second-person singular in referring to them is not very clear.

The gist of the essay, if that interests you, is that you cannot separate yourself from the fascist your society produces because such act of psychological and political separation prevents you from understanding the nature of fascist political evil, but also the problems of your society which gives rise time and again to fascist or similarly vile authoritarian and destructive political movements. It dehumanizes the fascist and makes them vile monsters instead of people; people with whom you will have to live with even if you win the war against them. Hence the title, "this man is my brother". 

I find it particularly interesting in the US context because one of man's caution when it comes to fascism was this temptation to absolve one's of the shared moral responsibility towards the evil perpetrated by one's nation. Mann observes that many German were quick to reject so thoroughly the guilt of the Nazi by appealing to their repudiation of their ideology that they forgot their moral responsibility to heal the damages or even failed to accept that it's their beloved society and culture that produced such evil. In other words, Mann believed that moral responsibility and moral guilt were two different things one assigns the need for justice and kindness and the other assigns blame. In the US context, this seems particularly important because the far-right conflates to the two constantly in it's view of the nation and the nature of it's own evil (slavery, misogyny and white supremacy). By conflating political and moral responsibility and guilt, they stoke this persecution complex they have about "the white men being blamed for crimes they did not commit personally" and then use this conflation to deny any form of justice, healing or restoration. So quick they are to reject the guilt that they reject the responsibilities at the same time.

PS: here's the full essay (I found it on a blog for free). You can read it if you want. It's rather dense and wordy (it's written by a German writer of the first half of the 20th century so brace for it). https://iamyouasheisme.wordpress.com/201...er-hitler/

If you prefer there is this video by philosopher and Youtuber Vlad Vexler who discusses the ideas of Mann as they relate to him as a Russian political philosopher in the context of the invasion of Ukraine and the democratic backslide of the current decade. it's much more accessible and quicker to go through.

[Rhythmcs]

Contemporary american fascism is an antimajoritarian countercultural movement. No problem in our society caused it. They think our society -is- the problem.

I'm pretty sure the extent to which anyone could describe these nuts as meaningfully american lines up perfectly with how critical a view on america a given person holds.

[Szuchow]

The gist of the essay, if that interests you, is that you cannot separate yourself from the fascist your society produces because such act of psychological and political separation prevents you from understanding the nature of fascist political evil, but also the problems of your society which gives rise time and again to fascist or similarly vile authoritarian and destructive political movements. It dehumanizes the fascist and makes them vile monsters instead of people; people with whom you will have to live with even if you win the war against them. Hence the title, "this man is my brother".

I would argue that I in fact can separate myself from fascist trash - we have nothing in common except language and even then their polish resembles mine about as much as mine own english resemble that of Chaucer*. Also being historian I can easily see what causes the rise of fascism - ignorance which in famous Socrates words is the only evil; ignorance coupled with hatred often sown by politicians and media. Lastly fascists are vile monsters but that does not stop them from being people. People are far viler than anything else in animal kingdom and there is no evil that mankind didn't do.

*To put this in numerary terms: I'm one of 8% of Poles that read at least 7 books per year, one of 8.6% of Poles who vote left, and one of 3% of Poland atheists.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I find it particularly interesting in the US context because one of man's caution when it comes to fascism was this temptation to absolve one's of the shared moral responsibility towards the evil perpetrated by one's nation. Mann observes that many German were quick to reject so thoroughly the guilt of the Nazi by appealing to their repudiation of their ideology that they forgot their moral responsibility to heal the damages or even failed to accept that it's their beloved society and culture that produced such evil. 

I'm certainly not denying America's social responsibility for our fascist problem. I believe that our refusal to invest in a quality educational system resulted in several generations being raised in historical and political ignorance. I also believe that after the 60s, which saw American youth turn its back on American exceptionalism as a belief, the right wing were so injured that they clung to the traditional values they saw as foundational no matter how revolting those values could be.

As a result of this, the willingness to compromise has been weakened, and the willingness to demonize has grown. This gives us the rising extremism in our nation, and because as Mencken once predicted the fascisti have wrapped themselves in the flag and wave the cross around, they've grown stronger faster.

Simply because I repudiate American fascism doesn't mean I'm in denial about it. It just means that I don't claim it as my own.

[Rhythmcs]

What's interesting is that the magats who attacked the capital were relatively well educated and wealthy americans. Contemporary american fascism is a suburban phenomena. Hell, this thread is about one of them sitting on the highest court in the land.

I still think he has an airtight defense against any allegation of impropriety. He'd have done all the horrid shit he's ever done for free. If it's a matter of public trust, the public can trust that.

[Szuchow]

[post in wrong thread]

[Cavebear]

What we have here is a failure to communicate. (LOL)

Some Supreme Court Justices (who are assigned the duty of interpreting the law accurately and historically) have decided they are above the law. The idea of recusal is completely ignored lately. "Stare Decisis" is being ignored by a majority of SCOTUS justices who have more legislative/political than legal interests. That really cannot continue.

It is time to impeach a few Justices and replace them more with neutral/centrist Justices who pay more attention to law than politics. And there are other options. The number of Justices can be increased. Their power can be legislatively reduced. There could be term or age limitations.

Suppose Congress passed a law limiting SCOTUS Justices to 30 years or age 80. There is enough debate these days about a President's age, why not them too?

So a law might say "The term of a Supreme Court Justice shall not exceed 30 years or the age of 80. You can quibble about years and age some, but what about the idea?

[SYZ]

Here in Australia, 70 years is the mandatory
retirement age for judges of the Federal courts.

But, in the US...

   Justice Thomas, 76 —out of a job.
   Justice Alito, 74 —out of a job.
   Justice Sotomayor, 70 —out of a job.
   Chief Justice Roberts, 69 —retiring next year.

   Justice Kagan, 64.
   Justice Kavanaugh, 59.
   Justice Gorsuch, 57.
   Justice Jackson, 54.
   Justice Barrett, 52.

[brewerb]

AOC files articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme...rcna161121

I don't expect this to get much traction.

[Thumpalumpacus]

AOC files articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme...rcna161121

I don't expect this to get much traction.

Too many crooks in the House for them to start chewing up one of their own.

[SYZ]

Clarence Thomas Just Hit With 'One-Two Punch'.

https://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thomas...er-1924791

[Cavebear]

AOC files articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme...rcna161121

I don't expect this to get much traction.

OK, hang them both!

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Clarence Thomas Just Hit With 'One-Two Punch'.

https://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thomas...er-1924791

Too bad both punches will fail to fall where they belong.

[SYZ]

Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, wrote a letter to Harlan Crow
asking for details about private travel with Justice Clarence Thomas.

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/do...8-full.pdf

For how long can the obviously corrupt Thomas legitimately
survive as a Supreme Court judge before he's impeached?

Thomas' participation in multiple cases related to the outcome
of the 2020 election, including his lone vote to prevent the 6 Jan
committee from accessing White House records relevant to its
investigation of the riot at the Capitol, has led to calls for ethics
reforms in the Court—as well as his resignation.

[Minimalist]

Impeached?  And then what?  There are too many asswipe republiKKKunts in the Senate who would stop conviction.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, wrote a letter to Harlan Crow
asking for details about private travel with Justice Clarence Thomas.

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/do...8-full.pdf

For how long can the obviously corrupt Thomas legitimately
survive as a Supreme Court judge before he's impeached?

Thomas' participation in multiple cases related to the outcome
of the 2020 election, including his lone vote to prevent the 6 Jan
committee from accessing White House records relevant to its
investigation of the riot at the Capitol, has led to calls for ethics
reforms in the Court—as well as his resignation.

(my bold)

For as long as there are enough Republican representatives and senators to prevent his impeachment, because he will never voluntarily give up the bribery gravy train.

[Minimalist]

There is no law or constitutional provision which prevents a supreme court justice from being arrested, tried and convicted.  However none of that would cause him/her to lose their seat on SCOTUS.

Of course..... they would not have to let him out of prison to attend court sessions.

It should be tried.  Uncle Tom Clarence is clearly guilty.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There is no law or constitutional provision which prevents a supreme court justice from being arrested, tried and convicted.  However none of that would cause him/her to lose their seat on SCOTUS.

Of course..... they would not have to let him out of prison to attend court sessions.

It should be tried.  Uncle Tom Clarence is clearly guilty.

... aaaaaand then we'll see another immunity ruling, this time for justices.

[mordant]

I also believe that after the 60s, which saw American youth turn its back on American exceptionalism as a belief, the right wing were so injured that they clung to the traditional values they saw as foundational no matter how revolting those values could be.

What does American exceptionalism mean to you, and why is it a Good Thing?

[mordant]

There is no law or constitutional provision which prevents a supreme court justice from being arrested, tried and convicted.  

Justice Gorsuch recently stated that the proposed ethics rules would undermine the court's "fierce independence" from "political pressure". Suggesting that it could only be misused, not, like any other tool, used properly. Also ignoring that such rules exist and work fine for other judges. As such ... I'm sure the idea of any sort of legal liability outside of impeachment would be decried on a similar basis. Probably even impeachment -- such that it would be so rarely used with such a high bar to conviction as to be essentially irrelevant, as it now appears to have become for Presidents.

Although I suppose a SCOTUS justice somewhere, somewhen must have gotten a speeding or parking ticket at least, I'm guessing that for any significant transgression they regard themselves as untouchable. Which is exactly why we need ethics rules and accountability and term limits.

[Minimalist]

I translate that as Gorsuch liking the bribes he gets.