They can call for him to resign all they want. He won't. And he doesn't have to. We have a SCOTUS who is accountable to no one and can get away with anything. They're like the Mullahs of Iran.
Ironically, in an attempt to make SCOTUS as non-political as possible, our Constitution sets a very high threshhold for removal of a sitting federal judge. You need 67 out of 100 Senators to vote for removal. Our senate is roughly 50/50 split, give or take a couple of people, divided almost evenly between the two parties. And those parties are so deeply divided that it's all but impossible to get up to the 67 people needed to remove a judge, making the threat of impeachment toothless. Any Republican right now who would side with Democrats to remove a Republican judge would be committing political suicide.
In other words, yes, Clarence Thomas can continue to receive bribes with literal impunity. The only other non-partisan methods of removing him are referral to our Department of Justice for a criminal inquiry. But our current leader of the DOJ is a spineless coward afraid of his own shadow, and even if he were to act, the entire process of investigation, charges, trial, impeachment, and removal would take so long that he'd likely be dead of old age before he was removed.
In theory they can do something about it but because in America there's only 2 parties in power, with one parry's identity being "opposing the other party no matter what" rather than serving the people of the country, they'll never reach the consensus necessary to actually remove the judge.
In most countries there's multiple parties in power so negotiation is typically mandatory and a consensus for action can often be found. In the US that's virtually impossible because the 2 parties hate each other and there's no other alternative.
You might be underselling Iran. Even the Supreme Leader can theoretically be removed from office, in the same sense that Thomas can theoretically be removed.
We've known this dude was a piece of shit since the Anita Hill trial in the 90's. This motherfucker has been corrupt since the start, he doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself, just like every other rich fuck in this country. So hes not the exception here by any means, he just didn't really make much of an effort to hide it.
He doesn't care, and none of the elite/handlers do, because it took 25 years for the blatant corruption to be exposed and make national headlines.
I could understand if it took a few years, but 20+ reinforces what most of us already know; journalism is a captured industry, and most "news" exists as a for-profit tool to manufacture consent.
I don’t understand how this isn’t a criminal matter. If nothing else, it violates the Ethics in Government Act. Is there no law against soliciting and accepting bribes?
I don’t understand how this isn’t a criminal matter. If nothing else, it violates the Ethics in Government Act. Is there no law against soliciting and accepting bribes?
This was discussed yesterday on one of the talking heads shows. The problem is that there's little to nothing in the act regarding enforcement or punishment. So basically, it comes down to this:
EIGA: Don't accept bribes. Bribes are bad.
Thomas: Nah, I'll take them anyway. What are you going to do about it.
EIGA: .....
Even if he were to be found guilty of a crime, it would be up to Congress to enforce the Constitutional provision about being in good standing. Which puts us right back to where we are now: If congress were willing to do that, they'd already be doing it and we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
As if this piece of shit would ever resign. He has immense power. He loves it. He'll never give it up. And he revels in our inability to do fuck-all about it.
That's a good shout. Forgot about that guy. He got stiffed in 2016, probably his last chance. I appreciate the unwavering adherence to principles of people like Ron Paul. Politics done the old fashioned way. The money is a huge problem.