The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Can President Obama remove Clarence Thomas from Supreme Court?

M

MorrisseyX

JUB Addict
Banned
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Posts
2,695
Reaction score
7
Points
0
Location
Toronto
Hello Americans, I got a question one supreme court judge died recently and so President Obama is going to appoint another. However, is there anyway, a President can have a supreme court judge removed who is alive? For instance, if a Supreme Court judge committed a crime can he or she be removed? Is there anyway President Obama can get Clarence Thomas off the bench? Thomas is the ultimate uncle tom he benefited from affirmative action yet he consistently is on the wrong side of history. Thomas is against gay marriage yet fails to see the similarities to his own interracial marriage to a white woman. It wasn't until 1967 that interracial marriage was finally legal across the United States. I think Clarence Thomas proves just because a person of colour has power does not mean the individual cannot be bigoted or corrupt. Thurgood Marshall was special but this guy I really believe Anita Hill he did sexually harass her.
 
Thank God it is not possible. We have enough of a circus with the Congress trying to impeach Clinton, overturn Obamacare, and Roe vs. Wade.

The Supreme Court is fairly well insulated other than the squabbles when new justices are confirmed.

Justice Thomas, good-bad-or-ugly, benefits from the same protections as does your favorite justice. There is a certain balance over time, and the Court gets a helluva lotta things right due to it.
 
I said to someone recently that the only way that Justice Thomas can now contribute to a court decision is via an ouija board. I don't think that I'm far from the truth!
 
The court was specifically designed to be isolated from the day to day politics of the nation and to be a true independent third branch of government. The key things that provide that independence is the life time appointments, thus it is made intentionally difficult to remove a sitting justice from office. The President appoints a justice but only Congress can remove one through the impeachment process which is designed to be hard to do. This maintains the balance of powers.
 
As was noted last week, given that Clarence Thomas always only did what Scalia did.......now is not the time to break that tradition.
 
An interesting thread, i would have thought that he would have been able to do this under the guise of an executive order.

I admit to finding out about the workings of the American judiciary system quite baffling, the Donald is like watching a train wreck in mid action.
 
The role of executive orders has been exaggerated by the GOP as a means of trying to make the Presidency look unaccountable, but its purview is naturally quite limited. Any semblance to unchecked executive authority is an illusion. And what is done by executive order can be undone by the same, so not a preferred means of execution.
 
medic1 said:
An interesting thread, i would have thought that he would have been able to do this under the guise of an executive order.

I admit to finding out about the workings of the American judiciary system quite baffling, the Donald is like watching a train wreck in mid action.
Click to expand...

The Court is a separate but equal branch just like the Presidency and the Congress. An executive order only applies to the executive branch of which the President is the head. It has no power over the Court.
 
lambdaboy said:
No [STRIKE]un[/STRIKE]fortunately it is a position for life!
Click to expand...

Corrected and quoted for truth. The insulation of the justices from short tenure or political removal has blessed the country with progress over the 200+ years and enabled us to gradually move in the right directions.

There are, of course, notable exceptions, but as a rule, the Court makes very well balanced rulings and benefits from the senior age of the justices.
 
No.

The Supreme Court is a roach motel. The president can appoint but not remove. Only the Senate can remove a judge, but a justice has never been convicted or removed by legal means. Any attempt to do so would almost certainly be partisan, and fail, or the evidence so overwhelming that removal seemed likely and in that case the justice would almost certainly resign to avoid the shame of a trial.
 
The post by Yoopers is a good one.

What the president can do, however, is sic the IRS on you if he doesn't like you. Or if his underlings don't like you. Have fun with that when the next Republican president is in office, boys. The die is cast.
 
As has been stated here, appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court is for life. While a Justice can resign or otherwise voluntarily remove himself from his office, he can only be removed by another through the impeachment process. That process is set out by law and is carried out in Congress. The House of Representatives must start the process by passing Articles of Impeachment. Then the process and the Articles of Impeachment move to the Senate, which tries the case and either votes to impeach or not to impeach. If impeached, only then is the Justice is removed from the Supreme Court.

No Supreme Court Justice has ever been impeached. The size of the Supreme Court, which is set by law, has varied over the years as the judicial burden imposed by the U.S. court system has varied. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's bill in Congress to significantly enlarge the Supreme Court's membership during the "New Deal" era, which was seen as a court-packing ploy to prevent his New Deal legislation from being overturned by the Supreme Court, failed passage. But court expansion is a way, if Congress can enact the necssary law, of changing the political complexion of the Supreme Court.
 
We don't want our justices impeached. The vetting process is pretty rigorous, and I've yet to read of any of them accused of malfeasance in office once on the high court.

It has been damaging enough to see the presidency under threat of impeachment and all the attendant partisanship. The Court has worked for our republic, day in and day out, regardless of which party is in power. None of us can get everything he wants in the rulings, no should we.
 
Justice Clarence Thomas Asks Questions in Court, 1st Time in 10 Years
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...-in-court-1st-time-in-10-years-370509211.html

The Conflict of Interest between Justice Thomas and Monsanto Should Concern Us All
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/...ce-thomas-and-monsanto-should-concern-us-all/

Justice Thomas's wife now lobbyist
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/justice-thomass-wife-now-lobbyist-048812

Throw Clarence Thomas Off the Bench
The Supreme Court justice broke the law by not disclosing his wife's $700K think-tank payday. Paul Campos on Clarence Thomas' "preposterous" defense and why he likely won't be punished.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...riminal-behavior-on-financial-disclosure.html


8 Reasons Justice Clarence Thomas Must Step Down
Plagued by ethical breaches and links to groups calling for armed insurrection against the U.S. government, Clarence Thomas must resign his seat on the Supreme Court.
http://www.alternet.org/story/151400/8_reasons_justice_clarence_thomas_must_step_down

That's the short list.
 
rareboy said:
As was noted last week, given that Clarence Thomas always only did what Scalia did.......now is not the time to break that tradition.
Click to expand...

I can comment on this, in really bad taste, and I'm going to Hell for this, and it's kind of a joke, but I can't resist:

No, Thomas SHOULD continue to do what Scalia did. Including Scalia's last "action" which he did in Texas... [EDIT: Oh wait, I read it wrong...that's what you DID say, lol]

And if this happened, and the Repugs in the Senate blocked any Obama nomination to fill the resulting second vacancy as well, the Supreme Court may *STILL* end up being no issue whatsoever in the 2016 electoral campaign, and yet it should be one of the most important issues in any election that has ever taken place anywhere in the history of the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top