Skip to main content

View Diary: There is No Third Way: Throw Them Off The Bench Before They Throw You Out of the Voting Booth (209 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Of course he is qualified (4+ / 0-)

    and he was confirmed.

    He is a moron and a right wing maniac, but he is legally a Supreme Court Justice.

    Troubadour, you should try Egypt. They don't seem to care too much about democratic governance and are happy to just toss out the bastards with force of arms.

    •  maybe you should post this where he'd see it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Troubadour, Victor Ward
      Troubadour, you should try Egypt. They don't seem to care too much about democratic governance and are happy to just toss out the bastards with force of arms.

      This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

      by certainot on Fri Jul 05, 2013 at 05:52:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is Clarence Thomas a 'moron'? (0+ / 0-)

        Technically, almost certainly not.  But I did notice this from his wikipedia page:

        "Thomas has recollected that his Yale law degree was not taken seriously by law firms to which he applied after graduating. He said that potential employers assumed he obtained it because of affirmative action policies. According to Thomas, he was 'asked pointed questions, unsubtly suggesting that they doubted I was as smart as my grades indicated.'"
        I find this telling for a couple of reasons.  First, when I get asked 'pointed' questions (assuming I understand the word the way Clarence Thomas does) in an interview, I assume it's because the people interviewing me think I can answer them -- and want to see me answer them, maybe in a better way than anyone else had up to that point.  But Thomas gets asked hard questions and appears to think, "Oh they wouldn't be asking me these questions if I was white.  They think I'm one of those stupid black people who got through under affirmative action."  Note also the undertone of, "they're only making things hard for me because I'm black".  It's a little creepy to see a Supreme Court Justice blaming racism in others when he is challenged, but perhaps, given his clearly stated views on affirmative action, maybe it's no surprise.  I'm just a little shocked to see a grown-up thinking this way.

        I have noticed at least one thing in my life: being smart is no proof against people (some people, anyway) thinking you're stupid.  But truly stupid people seem to be uniquely clever in coming up with complicated explanations for why people think they're stupid.  And this "everybody thinks I'm stupid because they assume I got where I am through affirmative action" theory seems to be one of those 'complicated explanations'.  And this also reveals the logical flaw in Thomas's 'complicated explanation'.  Even a person assuming he got where he is through affirmative action wouldn't necessarily assume further that he was stupid without some other corroborating evidence: smart people get promoted under affirmative action too.

        And anyway, smart people don't really care.  I don't know Clarence Thomas personally, and to be honest I don't really think I would want to, but this, I'm afraid, is the primary reason I think Clarence Thomas, far from being a victim of racism or a victim of affirmative action, may just simply be stupid.

    •  Uh huh. Petition to impeach = military coup. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlueEyed In NC, Chi, prfb

      Are you by any chance Wolf Blitzer?

      Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

      by Troubadour on Fri Jul 05, 2013 at 05:55:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Funny (6+ / 0-)

        When was the last time a SCOTUS justice was impeached?

        Just because a legal fig leaf exists doesn't make it legitimate. I'm sure the Egyptian army had a legal pretext too.

        It isn't legal to impeach a justice for a decision you don't like. You have to prove corruption or criminality. But you seem not to never stand that legal point.

        Damn, you really are obsessed.  The two criticisms are: it's not how we do it in America and anyway, it's impossible.

        You have an answer for each, and you're just gonna keep repeating them. Ever more stridently.

        Why don't you make good on your threat to find another progressive activist community where they will let you be in charge?

        As for me, I'm just laughing at this stuff now. The louder you shout and bluster and demean, the crazier you sound.

        •  So your rationalization for never doing (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Chi, wdrath

          what needs to be done is that someone else didn't already do it.  The Germans must have some philosophy jargon term for that.  And BTW, didn't you already admit not reading the diary?  It really shows.

          it's not how we do it in America
          HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!  Your desperation is showing.  You've totally canceled any thought I had of leaving Daily Kos.  Thank you - I needed your comment.

          Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

          by Troubadour on Fri Jul 05, 2013 at 06:31:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nasty is all you have (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, Victor Ward, Neuroptimalian

            Bwahahahaha lol lulz omg

            My statement is factual, although I know you have wax in your ears.

            The US has only ever impeached ONE Supreme Court justice, and that was in 1805, and he was ultimately acquitted.

            Literally, it is "not how we do things in the US."

            Impeachment is for corruption. Not political disagreement.  Using it (or the threat of it) every time politics doesn't go your/our way is bad advice.  It will eventually lead to lawless conflict.

            We use ELECTIONS to move politics in this country unless you have evidence of an actual crime.

            Also, crack me up with your "just because its legal under the law doesn't mean it's 'legal'" arguments, since you've been decrying exactly that argument when it's made in defense of the ultimate legality of Edward Snowden's whistle blowing for revealing NSA and FISA surveillance that is "technically" legal but defies US legal traditions.

            Double standards are also your thing, though.  I've learned a lot from reading your diaries about how your mind works.  You do not speak for the site, the community, or all progressives. But you sure put on airs like you do.

            You never planned to leave Daily Kos. You just had a public snit over people mocking your diaries.  You're the most self-important diarist here, and that's saying something.

            We who do not bow down and acknowledge your superior progressive credentials and right to tell us what to think salute you, good sir.

            •  Look, I've had a lot of fun with your (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              artmartin, lyvwyr101, tle, unfangus, XenuLives

              equating petitions with military coups, and calling rule of law un-American, but I've made my case pretty clearly here and I have no intention of sitting idly by while another attempt is made to rig an election from the bench.  I don't understand what's motivating your positions or whether you truly expect me to take you seriously when you engage in such transparent trolling.  

              The simple fact is that the people whose rights are under attack know who's on their side in this dispute.  You're making flailing excuses for five arrogant Star Chamber magistrates, and I'm arguing the 15th Amendment, the Declaration of Independence, and common sense.  Appeal to a tradition of failure all you please - I'm only interested in what needs to be done, not what already has been done.

              Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

              by Troubadour on Fri Jul 05, 2013 at 06:50:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  wrong! (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tle, Ender, wdrath, Troubadour
          It isn't legal to impeach a justice for a decision you don't like.
          It is perfectly legal for the House to impeach and the Senate to convict on any matter they deem fit.
          •  wilderness voice - you are right (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Victor Ward, Neuroptimalian, CenPhx

            Impeachment is a political act, not a criminal trial. Impeachment can be started for anything where there is political consensus among members of the House. The problem for Troubadour is that nearly all members of Congress do not believe that voting on cases is a legitimate reason to impeach a member of the Court, regardless of how abhorrent they believe those decisions to be. I share their view because I believe, as nearly all members of Congress, that removing judges on the basis of their decisions is a very slippery slope.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Fri Jul 05, 2013 at 10:07:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  RJS - only one Justice of the Supreme Court (5+ / 0-)

          has ever been impeached and that Justice was not removed by the Senate. So at the moment no Justice of the Supreme Court has ever been removed from the Court by Congress.

          None of the current Supreme Court Justices will be the first because members of Congress do not think that rulings on cases before the Court are an appropriate reason to initiate the impeachment process, absent some direct bribery.  It is my estimate that among the Democratic members of the House not a single vote could be obtained to impeach all five conservatives. The least liked is Thomas, and if all the effort was focused on just removing him maybe 20 - 40 Democratic House members would be willing to start the impeachment process, but not because of his votes on cases before the court.

          I think it would be interesting to see if a single member of Congress would even be willing to propose, on the record, that Justices be removed on the basis of how they vote on cases.

          I think that it is obvious that no current GOP member of the House would ever vote to impeach a member of the conservative five on the basis of how they cast their votes on cases before the Court.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Fri Jul 05, 2013 at 08:07:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I suppose the premise of the diary... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Troubadour

            is that the justices' opinions and votes are so egregious that if enough of us are willing to say so, a grassroots movement will sweep the nation and alter the political landscape. Or, in the alternative, that even if that outcome is unlikely, it is our last best hope for preventing permanent (or quasi-permanent) Republican dominance of the federal government, assured by the Court's lawless actions.

            I don't think any of that makes much sense. But I've tried to summarize it in sympathetic terms.

            Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

            by HudsonValleyMark on Fri Jul 05, 2013 at 08:14:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  And of course (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Victor Ward

        You get in a snide little personal insult.

        What are you, Rush Limbaugh?

        Get it?

    •  and he was confirmed.. (0+ / 0-)

      ...by a smaller margin than any Justice before or since.  At least they didn't have to bring in Dan Quayle to vote.

      Really not sure where you're going with this.

      Egypt just threw out a President guilty of nothing more than wanting to write his own constituti​on. Thank goodness we have the Supreme Court for that.

      The Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess).  If you find Scalia's behavior "good", then you may already have found yourself in a shrinking minority.  Personally, I think Troubadour has posed a question that needed to be posed: if we can't get rid of Scalia for his obvious lack of judicial temperament, then we probably can't get rid of a Supreme Court Justice for any reason whatsoever.  And that itself is a flaw in the Constitution that needs to be fixed.  Scalia may already be borderline insane.  Big deal.  He's a Supreme Court Justice.  As I'm sure he's be the first to say, "Get over it."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site