John Dean Knows How to Get Rid of Clarence Thomas

The Creeping Fascism of American Politics

FOCUS: States Unite Against Citizens United

Dimon's Deja Vu Debacle

This Is What Tyranny Looks Like

Google Is Destroying Your Privacy

Excerpt: "For good reason, there has been serious hand-wringing over what to do about the ethical lapses of US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.... There is clear precedent for how to deal with the justice. Thomas could be forced off the bench."

Justice Clarence Thomas, speaking at Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia, in 2007. (photo: Randy Snyder/AP)

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

+78 # ganymede 2011-06-29 20:11

Thank you John Dean. I've always been an admirer of yours. What is it going to take to put some spine into our fellow Liberal/Progressives? Hopefully, we'll continue to watch the Republican Party implode. Everything is going against them from demographics to their own foolishness and unending hypocrisy. It would just be nice to shove them a bit more forcefully off stage.

+45 # Regina 2011-06-29 22:48

This article is long overdue for the public at large. It needs to reach the "big" print and internet venues. Thomas makes Fortas look like a Boy Scout. As I recall, he crept onto the Court via a 52-48 Senate vote that stunned confirmation watchers, who over-confidently expected the reverse result. Unfortunately, impeachment in the current political climate would be a hellish undertaking.

+1 # Dorian Brown 2011-07-04 14:24

High 5 Regina! The article and John Dean's revelations about Thomas are long OVERDUE!! Anita Hill was telling the truth and we do not need a man in the courts who LIE$ AND sexually harasses women. Biden lost credence with many when he aided Clarence Thomas by the witholding of evidence. The man is an immoral person and incompetent Judge.

+3 # SouthBrun 2011-06-30 03:23

Is Clarence Thomas related to Rufus "Waling The Dog" Thomas?
I doubt it, as Rufus had talent.

+2 # rf 2011-06-30 03:56

The fact that Democrats use 'beanbags' is why I'll be voting third party until they grow a pair.

+17 # Pickwicky 2011-06-30 10:19

Rf--sorry to hear you'll be throwing away your vote.

+25 # Maren 2011-06-30 20:37

S/he's not throwing away the vote, s/he's giving it to the Republicans.

-2 # Tom Key 2011-07-02 22:12

It's almost certain that "rf" is a paid Republican troll.

+10 # GravityWave 2011-07-03 10:49

Either/or voting is another "beanbag" and even the most intelligent of Democrats sometimes fall into. But the stakes are too high now for egoistic "beanbag" thinking and voting. It will not change the honorable goal of having civil establishments and respecting them. But it will give a completely slimy, hateful, racist, theocratic, bunch of un-evolved lizard-brained retards a vote to consolidate their power.
You need to grow a pair of frontal lobes and realize that either/or is exactly what this GOP has preached from it's beginning years ago. Your protest vote is exactly what their divisiveness is all about. Don't fall for it. We need to stick together in what ever form we can pull together. Don't sweat the small stuff like monikers, get over your ego involvement and pull for a civil, intelligent, force no matter what it is called.

+2 # Julian Kernes 2011-07-04 10:17

You need 61 Democratic votes in the Senate to overcome the Republican filibusters.

+44 # motamanx 2011-06-30 04:01

How I wish the Congress would have the spine to cashier this man from the Supreme Court! He is an embarrassment to the country, and all that we have been taught that it stands for.

+6 # GravityWave 2011-07-03 10:51

Not enough power yet.

Vote Democrat to garner the needed power.

+47 # propsguy 2011-06-30 04:57

we should keep trying to get him throw off anyway. keep the pressure turned way up

+40 # Ralph Averill 2011-06-30 05:25

As much as I would love to see a formal investigation into the dealings of Justice Thomas, I think Dean is right; nothing will happen. I have given up waiting for the Democrats to grow a spine. They caved on the 2000 Florida re-count, the same for hauling the Bush Administration into criminal court.
Dean does illustrate the point I have made, and will continue to make, that the big issue in the 2012 election is not the White House, it's Congress and re-establishing the Democratic majority in the House, and strengthening the majority in the Senate.

+42 # Barbara K 2011-06-30 05:29

I hope that some action is taken soon to get this hunk of disgrace off our Supreme Court. He disgraces the position he is in, and the robe he wears. Every decision he was involved in should be reconsidered also, as he was always in a Conflict of Interest situation. He is destroying a once great court, along with a few others who are trying to make law from there instead of interpreting it; but maybe that is because they found it more profitable to do it that way.

+14 # nealjking 2011-06-30 06:16

I basically agree with Dean's analysis.

I also think that, with the presidential election coming so soon, Democrats will be reluctant to get rid of Thomas, for fear of irritating black voters. Thomas may not act to benefit black voters, but I suspect that very many of them see him as a black success story.

+33 # Michelle 2011-06-30 10:13

Quoting

I basically agree with Dean's analysis.

I also think that, with the presidential election coming so soon, Democrats will be reluctant to get rid of Thomas, for fear of irritating black voters. Thomas may not act to benefit black voters, but I suspect that very many of them see him as a black success story.

That my friend is almost 100% FALSE. I know of NO Black men or women who regard Clarence Thomas as anything more than a disgrace. To use your analogy - he is a DISGRACE to our RACE. He has NO integrity, NO intelligence and NO humanity. Get rid of the bum!

-16 # Karen Hill 2011-07-01 10:28

When election day came for "Obama", I, as never before, waited in a long line of black voters. They didn't care if he was the best man for the job...only the blackest!!!!

+17 # Suavane 2011-07-01 11:27

Hmmm, interesting! Your statement tells more about you than it does, black voters. Did you speak with most or all of these black voters?? I suspect not!! I believe our fellow Americans of all races and ethnicities, made the right choice in '08. I doubt it had all to do about his race.

-13 # jjv 2011-07-03 01:25

No doubt the reason Obama was elected was due to the ignorance of a large segment of the population fostered by the total breakdown of the medias primary responsibility of playing their roll as citizens "watchdog" over government. Instead they covered up and supported Obama, taking advantage of the political ignorance of 80% of the public.

+2 # Julian Kernes 2011-07-04 10:37

Maybe Republican policies that have people working 3 or 4 jobs were and still are exhausted by the Republicans wanting everyone besides their corporate masters to live on a trickle down. People need more than a trickle to live on so they voted the only other choice that could win in our national election. 3rd Parties have no chance unless you have Instant Run-off Voting that allows you to vote marking the 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, etc. and for example if the 1st choice is eliminated because the candidate doesn't have enough votes then your 2nd choice is considered.

+11 # swrussel 2011-07-03 09:54

Quoting

When election day came for "Obama", I, as never before, waited in a long line of black voters. They didn't care if he was the best man for the job...only the blackest!!!!

Since you think anecdotes are evidence, let me offer one. In Texas, we elect judges. I am not black, but I was an incumbent. Since I had pissed off the bar, a challenger could raise as much money as I could. The challenger was also a judge on a lower court and he was black. I got 55% of the black vote.

True, I got 76% county wide--some people do in fact vote race.

But the fact of the matter is that minorities vote for white people every day with any notice. Tom Delay's redistricting put Lloyd Doggett in a majority Hispanic district and the GOP put up a Hispanic against him. He was reelected.

The problem of racism in the voting booth is not a race-neutral problem just like dog bite is not a species-neutral problem. It's only been since the 1965 Voting Rights Act it could even be brought up against minorities...and it has been.

+16 # Pickwicky 2011-06-30 10:23

Nealjking--my hunch is that if removing Thomas from SCOTUS is part of the plan, the plan won't go into effect until Obama's second term. Another reason to get out the DEM vote.

+30 # C. Price 2011-06-30 20:16

The vast majority of black voters want nothing more than the removal of Thomas from the court. We shudder when we remember that Thomas succeeded Thurgood Marshall. 'nuff said.

+9 # lawNOrder 2011-07-01 20:33

I am so happy you can interpret the views of ALL African-American voters that you can decide how we will act. neal, WE are not a monolithic block, matter of fact, we don't even all vote Democrat. As far as the Democratic party not wanting to get rid of Thomas, I am sure its due to being busy working on the economy, the war, dealing with the attacks on women's reproductive health in the Midwest, attacks on collective bargaining, etc. and maybe just not having enough votes in the House and Senate until AFTER the 2012 election! neal, your ignorance of(Blacks) who think Clarence Thomas is anything BUT an idiot, means you have a loooong way to go before you can read any analysis a find basic agreement, as you need to turn off the "internets" and go meet some actual people of color, black, brown, purple. Even after that, you will ONLY know the few that you met and NOT all of us. Yes, Thomas should be gone, NO he never should have been confirmed, he certainly could not have have been less qualified and only a callous soul would postulate that anyone would support him considering his actual performance. SO neal, troll on a subject that you have some actual knowledge...

+5 # StayWoke 2011-07-02 19:53

Nah...CT is a living, breathing Uncle Ruckus. It's like Uncle Ruckus jumped from the BoonDocks and onto the USSC.

+40 # Mark Esche 2011-06-30 06:20

Justice Thomas has always struck me as being more partisan and bitter, rather than learned and judicial. It also appears that he and his wife see his position as one to enhance their wealth and position. Sounds a lot like Rod Blagoyevitch, don't you think? Thomas is not representing any one well, not his race, not his Party, not the Ideals of the Supreme Court. It has had some stinkers for judges, and Thomas ranks right down there with the worst.

+43 # hank 2011-06-30 06:21

I believe Thomas perjured himself in 1991 and this should be the basis for removing him from the supreme court.

+10 # JustJim 2011-06-30 08:21

Maybe it needs a Special Prosecutor to ferret out the perjury. What is Kenneth Starr up to these days?

+47 # Dale Fanter 2011-06-30 06:35

We knew Thomas was unfit for the Court, but the Conservatives wanted a black jurist and found the most conservative candidate they could dig up. Thomas' consistent, predictable voting essentially gives Scalia two votes. We have five ex-corporate attorneys who will continually vote for corporations and big money and against the best interests of the middle class, or the "rabble" as for as these jurists are concerned. Thomas is not ethical enough to recuse himself on any issues and will certainly not resign, so we should pursue John Dean's roadmap to get him off the Court.

+7 # savannah43 2011-07-01 10:00

They wanted him on the Court because he's compliant. He makes the majority. To allow his removal now would possibly allow BHO to appoint a more moderate justice. The corporate overlords cannot and will not have that happen. Why isn't the Chief Justice, Roberts, doing something about this? This Court is corrupt.

+13 # TrueAmericanPatriot 2011-06-30 06:45

Thank you again, John Dean. I have followed the politics of both parties since I was eleven (believe it or not). "Worse Than Watergate" was and absolute masterpiece, written with the purest of truth and integrity. Thomas is clearly NOT the victim. He should NEVER have been nominated to the high court. As for who is responsible for "ruining his life" goes, he needs only to look into the mirror; a number of them since, they probably crack after he glances in each of them. He was, and STILL IS, A PERVERT!!! What and embarassing follow-up to the late Thurgood Marshall!! I agree with ganymede in hoping for the "subterannean corporate communists and politicians" to continue to cannibalize themselves. I bless the day that these "closet commies" become permanent pariahs to our great American Society.

+25 # boudreaux 2011-06-30 07:33

George Washington thought that honesty was the best polcy, but it is increasingly apparent that for some members of the Supreme Court, that's one founding principle they feel free to ignore.

+15 # Diane Johnson 2011-06-30 07:54

first you must ge rid of a lot of republicans who would back him.
then file criminal charges...

+22 # jwb110 2011-06-30 08:55

If Democrats have anything akin to Republican "think tanks" they should be mobilized to keep pressure on him from direct mail advertising and in the press(foreign and Domestic) and on the internet.
A Free Press, sadly dwindling in the US, is a great way to bypass the GOP juggernaut. There are ways and they have to be used because there is no way to get redress from the Gov't.

+13 # Capn Canard 2011-06-30 15:35

well, all things are controlled by MONEY. If the Press were owned by the Public then you would get far better news. For Profit media only gives the side of the story that makes a PROFIT. People have been swindled and now we have to undo the damage and that is no small task. I hope that RSN can hold on...

-34 # Dave Brady 2011-06-30 13:05

Now when a conservative disagrees with Obama on substance and actions he is a racist, does this make all of you liberals a bunch of racist or is there a double standard?

+11 # SOF 2011-06-30 14:58

Quoting

Now when a conservative disagrees with Obama on substance and actions he is a racist, does this make all of you liberals a bunch of racist or is there a double standard?

We don't need to disagree with conservative agenda because it's racist -idealism, patriotism, intelligence, and data can do that. The pot calls the kettle black. The best defense is an offence. Who've you been listening to?

+21 # zippy w pinhead 2011-06-30 17:06

False premise, Dave. Agreeing or disagreeing on the issues doesn't make one racist and liberals don't claim that it does. That is something wingnuts claim to try to inoculate themselves from the charge. If a person says or does something racist or engages in racist behavior, then they are racist, regardless of their political philosophy. The fact that a sizable minority of the GOP base IS racist, the fact that so many of the rest of the GOP faithful have made the Faustian bargain of turning a blind eye to the racism in their midst and the fact that the GOP leadership continually fans the flames of racism with their dog whistle politics is YOUR problem, not the liberals...

-14 # Surly_Curmudgen 2011-07-02 11:50

The Democrat party has been the source, the origin, the very fount of racists and racism since the beginning of this nation. They are the party that fostered and supported slavery. They are the party of Jim Crow laws and lynchings. They are the party of gun control laws so that blacks could not defend themselves when the KKK, all Democrats, showed up. They are the party that fought against the civil rights act for one hundred years until the Republicans backed them into a corner they could not get out of. They are the party that to this day insists that a black man is stupid and incapable of competing with a white man for college or job. Now do some actual research to find that every thing I said is true.

+9 # StayWoke 2011-07-02 20:01

I guess you forgot about the Southern Strategy? The past is past. What do the "parties" stand for/advocate now?

-1 # Surly_Curmudgen 2011-07-06 11:30

The Southern Strategy concentrated the racists within the Democrat party.

What...did you think that people would not notice that more republicans than democrats supported the civil rights act.

The political right has always been live and let live and tends to judge people by the content of their character.

-1 # StayWoke 2011-07-07 07:42

Quoting

The Southern Strategy concentrated the racists within the Democrat party.

What...did you think that people would not notice that more republicans than democrats supported the civil rights act.

The political right has always been live and let live and tends to judge people by the content of their character.

Uh no...the Southern Strategy concentrated DixieCrats in the Republican Party. Don't believe me? Feel free to check out this book from your local library; The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South by Joseph A. Aistrup

-7 # jjv 2011-07-03 01:28

All true but now watch as the lbs vociferously attack and demean you PERSONALLY rather then address the truth of your post, truths supported by historical content in any number of publications and government documents.

+4 # tequilamockingbird 2011-07-03 21:14

Surly, you're right up to "They are the party that fought against the civil rights act for one hundred years ..." but then you kind of lose it. Are you ignorant of what happened next? Or are you deliberately leaving out what happened next? When Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, the racists fled en masse to the Republican party where they have remained ever since.

-1 # Surly_Curmudgen 2011-07-06 10:54

Quoting

Surly, you're right up to "They are the party that fought against the civil rights act for one hundred years ..." but then you kind of lose it. Are you ignorant of what happened next? Or are you deliberately leaving out what happened next? When Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, the racists fled en masse to the Republican party where they have remained ever since.

There where a few stupid ones who believed the spewage of the progressive media and started calling themselves Republicans.

The hard core racists will always be on the left. Racism is an integral part of the intolerance inherent in the progressive agenda.

-1 # StayWoke 2011-07-07 07:50

I like your revisionist history. It's cute...dangerous...but cute. I'm glad there is PLENTY of scholarship out there to refute your specious claims. Another book worth reading is MADE IN TEXAS: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics by Michael Lind

+15 # SOF 2011-06-30 14:53

Yes, the Republican House will block any move to investigate Thomas. They like him -a lot.
And the Democrats won't fight for it. Is this is some kind of boomerang karma? Nancy Pelosi refused to acknowledge the tital wave of folks urging impeachment for Bush Jr., saying that was 'off the table'. That was our chance to get answers and investigations. The military/industrial/oil/corporate complex is just plain emboldened by opponents weakness, civility, and stupidity.

+1 # okie from soroki 2011-07-01 07:36

Quoting

The fact that Democrats use 'beanbags' is why I'll be voting third party until they grow a pair.

rf: you are a beanbag. Your attitude is exactly what engenders the tiptoeing.

+9 # Suavane 2011-07-01 11:42

Thanks to John Dean for an excellent analysis of the Justice Thomas situation. His analysis of the wall President Obama has been up against should be remembered in the upcoming election as it concerns what the President has achieved in his first term. I quote it here: "For the Republicans, seats on the Supreme Court are worth whatever it takes to get them. They play hardball. For Democrats, well, they play beanbag over judicial appointments. Democrats are willing to toss a few stingers, but never do they truly want to hurt anyone. They cannot help it that they are nice people, and ruthlessness does not work for them. This is why a minority of Republicans in the United States can control the overwhelming majority of Democrats and independents who lean left." While I like this analysis, I'd add that there were Democrats identified as "Blue Dog" Democrats, that voted with Republicans on issues such as: the Health Care, and stimulus bill the President wanted.

-19 # HardRight 2011-07-01 18:47

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is one of the finest Supreme Court Justices to sit on the bench. The alleged "case" against him is nothing, as we all have the right to freely associate. The Bible is an heirloom, not a piece of real estate. Get real people! This is political, plain and simple, just to pack the court for the coming decision on ObamaCare. The sad reality is that you hate Clarence Thomas because you don't believe it proper for a black man of such high position to be conservative. This is racist bigotry plain and simple.

+7 # Pickwicky 2011-07-02 07:58

HardRight--utter nonsense. Take a closer look at that "alleged case." And look through fresh eyes at the ethics involved.

+11 # Carbonman1950 2011-07-02 19:48

Ahh... again the rightwingers appeal to race. How appropriate. Thomas' ethical faults were ignored during his confirmation hearings, only because he successfully invoked the image of the lynchings of black men in our history.

Now that his lack of judicial ethics has become obvious to all and can no longer be ignored, his supporters are once again playing the race card.

+4 # StayWoke 2011-07-02 19:57

By any chance, is your birth name Uncle Ruckus or are you some long lost kin of Clayton Bigsby?

+12 # Tom Key 2011-07-02 22:20

@ HardRight. "...one of the finest"? Have you read his opinions? Have you even read his Autobiography? While fairly predictable in a way -- voting 99% with Scalia -- he is not at all consistent (because Scalia is not), and he ignores the facts, the law, and the arguments of counsel. (He has never asked a single question of them. Ever.)

-9 # drush 2011-07-02 07:50

I guess Tweeting underwear is more dangerous than selling out the Country for your own financial gain and/or to build up your ego. That appears to be our new ethic. Take what you can. It's ok.
Or maybe that has always been the case just that it is normally more masked.
As for hoping the Dem.s are there for the Country, forget that.
We can choose the slow death of being put to sleep,nice bedtime stories,
or elect Repub.s and maybe wake up the populus with the Repub shock treatments.
Fast would be better, more efficient.

-8 # Robbins Mitchell 2011-07-02 09:49

I guess John thinks we have all forgotten that his ex Maureen used to be a working whore for a DC escort service....well,not all of us have forgotten,Johnn y

+4 # tequilamockingbird 2011-07-03 21:17

Look up the term "ad hominem," Robby.

0 # Phil Meredith 2011-07-02 10:04

Documents just released by the Justice Dept. has ignited a request for congress to investigate Justice Kagen for lying during her confirmation hearings. She was asked, in writing, twice, if she had any active part in the writing of Obamacare. Her relpy was an emphatic "No". Where is the out rage here?

+9 # Carbonman1950 2011-07-02 19:54

I await the results of investigation if there is one. (I also await the results of the investigation of illegal torture by high officials from the previous administration who have publicly admitted approving that torture if there ever is one.) If that investigations shows that she lied I will be outraged. BUT you imply that you know she did "play an active part in the writing of Obamacare". Do you? If so, how is it that YOU have evidence that the Justice Dept. does not have? If you have such evidence why have you withheld it?

+2 # historywriter 2011-07-04 13:42

An investigation means nothing. It probably means only that the republicans are trying to do a tit for tat now that the truth about Thomas is coming out.
Her name is Kagan.

-14 # E. ONeal 2011-07-02 11:23

Thank you, convicted felon and perjurer John Dean. The years have only made you sleazier. Your Watergate co-conspirators are waiting for you in Hell.

-13 # Ge0ffrey 2011-07-02 12:01

The high-tech lynching continues.

+5 # Carbonman1950 2011-07-02 19:56

Cool!!! Yet another assertion of racism by a right-winger. You prove my point.

+14 # Carbonman1950 2011-07-02 19:37

Thomas has always whined about being a victim. No one ever cast the slightest doubt on Anita Hill's veracity and her testimony (and that of the other women who testified against Thomas) that he was ethically unfit to be on the Supreme Court stands unblemished.

But Thomas whined that he was the victim of white liberals' resentment of a his accomplishments and them capped that essentially race based appeal by appropriating the nation's horrible history of lynching black men to manipulate the centrists and liberals (who feared they might be thought racist) into dropping their opposition to his ascension to the Supreme Court. As a result he, who consistently rules against all manner of affirmative action, is on the Court only because he claimed to be the victim of racial bias. Ironically, Thomas is, in essence, the only Supreme Court justice in the nation's history who is on The Court because of affirmative action.

There was no racial component to the testimony against Thomas. Ms. Hill's assertion was that Thomas was intellectually and ethically unfit to be a Supreme Court justice. Sad to say, during his tenure he has proven her correct.

+9 # Pickwicky 2011-07-03 07:33

You know it's kinda funny when you think about it: the only memorable thing, the only thing of real interest that Thomas has uttered in all the years he's been in the limelight is saying he's a victim of "a high tech lynching." Wouldn't you think a Justice on SCOTUS would have said something else in all these years to top that? Not funny.

+3 # Zev Guber 2011-07-03 18:11

Strange is it that the Attorney General has relentlessly pursued Tom Drake, (the whistle blower on billions of NSA waste) and has taken no action here were the conflicts of interest are an affront to any thinking person.

Tom Drake has called our attention to lawlessness on the highest levels, while Thomas has been a supporter of right-est causes, which his wife and hence him, have benefited immensely.

It is perverse. No wonder the country is in such trouble. We have lost our sense of principle and purpose, which is just what Tom Drake has stood up for.

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

rsn

Name:	*
Username:	*
E-mail:	*
Password:	*
Confirm password:	*
Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.