A few days ago, Jane Mayer – who I consider to be just short of a national treasure – wrote an article published in The New Yorker, entitled Is Ginni Thomas a Threat to the Supreme Court? About once a year I write a piece based almost exclusively on an article or an op-ed. Today is one of those rare days.

Several years ago, I called for the impeachment of Clarence Thomas. I didn’t think that would happen, it didn’t and I would not advise you to hold your breathe waiting for it to. None of that in any way diminishes the fact that it would be perfectly justified.

I have a rather health ego as my regular readers have no doubt detected. That said, I recognize those who are better than me. Ms. Mayer has both superior writing ability and much more extensive resources. While her article didn’t explicitly call for impeachment; – in fact, she outlines how close to an impossible dream it is – she covered that option.

On many occasions I have referred to Justice Thomas as, Clarence “Just give the money to Virginia” Thomas. I’m not talking about the Commonwealth of Virginia. For years the Thomas’ have had a great scam going. Nobody bribes Justice Thomas; they just “employ” his wife. I have often stated that I would work for free if you simply paid my wife enough. (Hint: she is a much tougher negotiator than I am!) On multiple occasions people/groups with cases before the Court or filers of Amicus briefs on issues before the Court have had Virginia on their payroll. If this is not bribery it certainly doesn’t pass the smell test. I believe that married people should be able to operate largely independent of their spouses but this crosses the line!

If Thomas were a judge on any level other than the Supreme Court he would be in violation of ethical standards. In the case of the Supreme Court there are no standards other than the ones each justice individually placed on themselves. Thomas has never recused himself in a case where his wife is by extension a party nor has he disclosed the conflicts.

There is a legislative effort – currently in limbo – to place ethical standards on members of the Court. The Court, via Chief Justice John Roberts, has signaled that it will not tolerate what it perceives as interference from the legislative and executive branches. Translating that into plain English. If legislation is enacted I expect the Court to declare it unconstitutional. Theoretically we have three co-equal branches of government. In reality the Court seems to be a bit “more equal”.

In two recent rulings Thomas has been the lone dissenter. I see cause and effect as opposed to coincidence. (Nance’s Law.)
Almost all of us of a certain age vividly remember Thomas’ contentious confirmation hearings. Today it looks all but certain he lied. (I have to feel that if I live long enough I will largely feel the same about the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings only with more evidence than we have today.)

This Court is legislating from the bench and the “Thomas connection” is just an example of dirty lobbying.

Jane Mayer has more ability than I do and her article is longer than anything I dare post. Please read it. It is easily found online.

This article is the property of tellthetruthonthem.com and its content may not be used without citing the source. It may not be reproduced without the permission of Larry Marciniak.