These 74 Members of Congress should call on Justice Thomas to be impeached.

74 Members of Congress penned a letter to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas asking him to recuse himself should the high court take up the constitutionality of Obamacare. Justice Thomas’s wife – Ginni – recently started a new lobbying firm called Liberty Consulting with the purpose of bringing, “voice to principled citizens and the tea party movement in the halls of Congress through governmental affairs efforts.” Considering she will likely be paid by organizations to convince Members of Congress to repeal the healthcare law – there will certainly be a considerable incentive for Justice Clarence Thomas to rule against the law should it come to the Supreme Court.

The bias here couldn’t be any more obvious. And the federal recusal statute – the law by which judges are supposed to operate by clearly states – “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned…” For example if, “He or his spouse… is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” Of course – this statute didn’t prevent Justice Thomas from ruling on the Bush v. Gore decision back in 2000 – that handed George W. Bush the presidency – even though his wife worked for the Bush transition team. And it didn’t prevent Thomas from hearing the Citizens United Case last year even though he often takes part in political strategy session organized by the billionaires Koch brothers who directly benefited from the Supreme Court’s ruling in that case. We are seeing flat out corruption in the highest court in the land.

The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to oversee the duties of the Supreme Court – and if 74 Members of Congress ask Thomas to step down – then he should. Better yet – these 74 Members of Congress should call on Justice Thomas to be impeached.


runpatrick1's picture
runpatrick1 13 years 19 weeks ago

Thom, read this brief IKEA piece and see if a line jumps out at you:

Highly successful IKEA has a point-of-view not shared by many struggling American Companies.

Best, Patrick Roden

wmstoll's picture
wmstoll 13 years 19 weeks ago

Justice Black, a FDR justice, did not recuse himself when his law partner had a case before the court. At that time, it was concluded, that only a Justice can recuse himself.

Rockhead's picture
Rockhead 13 years 19 weeks ago

Not a chance. Justice Thomas seems more arrogant even than Justice Scalea. But it is an arrogance fed by a horrible sense that he is a fraud. So he plays the fraud's game of compensating for ineptness with arbitrary applications of power. What really gives him a kick is that, like the type of the religious prohibitionist that H L Mencken describes, he knows he is wrong but he knows he can do it anyway because there is no one to control him. Except his ventriloquists.

Congress show some nerve by impeaching a Supreme? Congress doesn't have the nerve to impeach its own shadow.

Fern Sweet's picture
Fern Sweet 13 years 19 weeks ago

He's got to go.

Zoktoberfest's picture
Zoktoberfest 13 years 19 weeks ago

Around Red Square

…, remember, you must turn right onto Ethics Blvd, because its' a one way.

Drive carefully, because traffic enforcement cameras are everywhere.

I've heard, their motion sensors were spectrally tuned during the Clinton era, to see only shades of blue and therefore, only infractions by blue cars are captured and cited.

When turning right, use extreme caution, because red vehicles fly around Red Square as if it were the Autobahn.

Eventually, you must again turn right onto a one way, and like the previous stretch, it has those "cameras".

If you continue around Red Square, you will encountered two more, must turn right onto one ways and find yourself back on Ethics Blvd.

If you haven't seen the flash of an enforcement camera during the drive around, consider yourself lucky.

Again, give wide berth to the maniacs in the red cars using Red Square like the own personal Autobahn.

Hope to see your blue car pulling up in the driveway soon, or maybe not.

delster's picture
delster 13 years 19 weeks ago

I really don't think anything will happen to Clearance Thomas. I don't think Congress will call for his impeachment and as a result improprieties will become an everyday event. It is the gradual or maybe

immediate decline of justice in America. It will take an extra ordinary Nation to overcome and correct this corruption. I wish I had faith this would happen. I think the rot has consumed most of the fruit.

Larry Motuz 13 years 19 weeks ago

DITTO to that sentiment. I just hope these letter writers will bring a charge. He would be the first SC Justice to be successfully impeached.

4Buckley 13 years 19 weeks ago

Justice Thomas should recuse himself; he should be impeached. Unfortunately, I don't believe that any of these things will happen because our system has become too terribly corrupt. Money rules everything. The corporations have the money; therefore the power. They will kill this nation.

dnarnadem 13 years 19 weeks ago

I believe he can be impeached. I also believe that no one is above the law. His wife is selling his vote - all you have to do is prove that he and she have colluded to rake in some money being given to his wife who is influencing him and buying his vote. President Nixon resigned when he was caught in a lie - Justice Thomas can be impeached or resign because he is corrupting the system of law he is suppose to be upholding. Again, no one in this country is above the law and he needs to be investigated and ultimately impeached. If the Prisident of the United States can be questioned by Congress, then a Supreme Court justice can be likewise.

The arrogance of these Justices is really beginning to STINK!!!

lisgarwan's picture
lisgarwan 13 years 19 weeks ago

Then the rules should apply to all and not just the conservatives: There is a fine line and it needs full adherance, to call for impeachment Of Justice Thomas then should all rulings Justice Ginsberg made on behalf of her bias be overturned?

The liberal Ginsburg's involvement with the legal activist group, and recent outside activities by a conservative colleague, Justice Antonin Scalia, have touched off a debate over what kinds of extrajudicial appearances and contacts are appropriate for Supreme Court justices.

The code of conduct for the federal courts does not set clear rules for judges' involvement with advocacy groups. But it warns jurists to steer clear of outside legal activities that would "cast reasonable doubt on the capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before" them.

Federal law says a judge or justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

Several legal experts say Ginsburg's ongoing affiliation with the legal activist group undercuts her appearance of impartiality. Ginsburg declined to comment.

Although Ginsburg was well known as a lawyer for her support of women's rights, Hofstra University law professor Monroe Freedman said she should have severed her public ties with advocates for women's issues when she was elevated to the Supreme Court by President Clinton in 1993.

"I think this crosses the line," he said.

Ginsburg's affiliation with the advocacy group raises issues similar to those prompted by Scalia's appearance last year before a group whose members oppose gay rights at the same time the court was weighing a landmark gay rights case.

lisgarwan's picture
lisgarwan 13 years 19 weeks ago

Soros Funded Group ,

"At issue here is the well-known liberal group, Common Cause, heavily funded by liberal Billionaire George Soros group Open Society Institute and the Tides Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation doesn’t like that they lost the case last year that stripped some elements of McCain-Feingold, allowing corporations to become more involved in political campaigns.

Common Cause is now “asking the Department of Justice to investigate Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia in relation to the Citizens United Supreme Court case, arguing that their decision in the case raised ‘serious questions about the impartiality of’ both justices.”

According to Common Cause President and CEO Bob Edgar, “It appears both justices have participated in political strategy sessions, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the decision,” as contends that the justices should have recused themselves from the case and adding that the decision should be vacated.

leighmf's picture
leighmf 13 years 19 weeks ago

Would it be like the Clinton Impeachment? Is it safer to use peer pressure to make him retire so he can be retained by the private corporate sector?

jnefoss's picture
jnefoss 13 years 19 weeks ago

I agree that Justice Thomas needs to go, however, until we make some serious adjustments in all parts of the mass media in this country, nothing can happen. What is needed here is a mass protest against the media on a scale we are seeing in Egypt. That can only happen by a raising of the collective consciousness throughout the country. One at a time, we need to begin protesting against each of the major networks.

Yacketydad 13 years 19 weeks ago

Impeach the son of a gun.

roy dahlin 13 years 19 weeks ago

I disagree in part w/ New #8 and 13, if they mean that the whole of the Union is a single “nation” and under Washington, D.C., the de facto, as opposed to possibly 50 countries or nations, then I descent.

I must agree w/ New #6 the U.S. cesspool is too corrupt and broken. Hence the original cause for the tea party as formed by Ron Paul. And somebody, you know who, wants the people rendered armsless. How do you suppose the people exercise the mandate contained in the last phrases of the Declaration of Independence?

J. Clarence Thomas belongs, bought and paid for, (there is no difference between him and the fella Bush III) to the shadow power elite that runs the de facto fascist national security corprotocracy police state. Who said there is no conspiracy?

Any justice must recuse itself even if there is only the appearance of partiality or impropriety. When the justice is involved in abuse of discretion, including Scalia, he should be impeached. Fat chance that’ll happen. They can’t even investigate the Bushwhacker for torture. You’ll only see more arrogance as high crimes go on being ignored and tolerated by the people.

I fully agree w/ New #13 that the people must physically demonstrate enmass in the streets as the “lowly towelheads” in Cairo and elsewhere has shown us. All of these infractions against the public trust cannot go unrewarded. We must go around the established and owned media and bolster independent media like this one to rally the people under one banner.

I’m sorry that I’ve been remiss in this vain, attempting to support Wikileaks, Manning & CCR w/ what meager funds I can muster after arming myself.

Demo3's picture
Demo3 13 years 19 weeks ago

It is interesting that all you guys think a black judge can not be objective. Lets face it, all the judges were appointed because of there unique life experiences which influence there decisions. Are you saying that you can not tolerate Justice Thomas black experiences.

Mark Polsky's picture
Mark Polsky 13 years 19 weeks ago

I hope he is impeached. Why do the Supreme Court Justices have life-time appointments? Many people think this is wrong. Is there anyway to change this law? They should all be independent justices, not conservative and/or liberal.

dnarnadem 13 years 19 weeks ago

"It is interesting that all

It is interesting that all you guys think a black judge can not be objective. Lets face it, all the judges were appointed because of there unique life experiences which influence there decisions. Are you saying that you can not tolerate Justice Thomas black experiences."

Scalia is not Black - and I want him investigated and impeached also! But he is Catholic. Seems to me that 60+ years ago there was a "Catholic" "Popish" conspiracy (Remember the KKK?) going on in this country, and the fear was that the Catholics were out to get the Protestants. And then JF Kennedy was elected. Mama Mia, the world was turned upside down! The End of the world was upon us. But we are all still here. And 5 Catholics now sit on 5 of the benches of the Supreme court! (Hey, there might still be some truth to that conspiracy of a Catholic takeover!)

This is a ridiculous question! Black experiences? - Our President is black! I voted for him. But I don't want to impeach Obama.

I want to have Thomas investigated. Has nothing to do with my not being able to tolerate his "Black Experiences" decisions for crying out loud – it’s about his ultra-conservative decisions and now his possible decisions being influenced by his wife (who is white by the way) who is accepting money from conservative groups and entities who indirectly may want to influence Thomas's vote. What does this have to do with anyone not being able to tolerate decisions based on his 'Black Experiences'? Nothing! But has everything to do with decisions being corrupted by maybe White Elite Ultra-conservative Fascist Corporate interests!

Any one Judge on that court has more power than ALL Americans, our President, all the Courts, all of Congress, and all of the Senate! Justice Kennedy used his one vote in Citizens-United to swing the decision that granted “Personhood” to Corporations. One Man! (Thomas voted for the “Personhood” decision – and I fail to see, given all Racist, Jim Crow, Segregationist, hatred for the Black Person in this country, how this morphs into his “Black experiences” and how it influenced his vote for “Citizens-United” which may very well be the instrument that dis-enfranchises’ ALL blacks in this country)!

So you see, we do want to make sure that EVERY judge that sits on that court is not influenced by special interests – every one of them. And if it is found that there was a direct connection between a judges vote and an ideological influence, wife, money or otherwise, than he or she should be investigated, and possibly impeached. Period!

JoJoBo44 13 years 19 weeks ago

Quite frankly, I don't think the congress has the "balls" or the fortitude it requires to remove a judge from his seat. Just look at W's war crimes and how it was stated "impeachment is off the table".

OpaBob's picture
OpaBob 13 years 19 weeks ago

Anyone know where I can find a list of the folks who co-signed this letter? I've done some searches, but so far come up empty. I would like to congratulate my congressman if he signed.

growin's picture
growin 13 years 19 weeks ago

Check out this great website that shows how the wealth of our country is shared:

roy dahlin 13 years 18 weeks ago

I understand from the Hartmann program that Sanders is to appear at a forum to strategize for the citizens United case implications.

I have found no other way of communicating with the Honorable Bernie Sanders hence this piece in this venue.

I just wanted to comment on the term 'person' or 'personage'.

As we all know the common colloquial term 'person' means living breathing human being.

What if I said we living souls of mankind are not persons?

However, this common meaning is not so in the legal sense. The legal term, 'person', means something entirely different.

The legal meaning comes from the Greek drama, where the 'person' is the mask, status or character of the actor in the drama. It is the face or Façade of the stage actor. It is entirely distinct and different from the living soul of the actual actor behind the mask. They are not the same. I know that this is deep and difficult to wrap one's mind around the concept, but fundamental inlaw. Therefore the legal definition for the term, 'person' means the office of the person, character or status of the individual referred to. Further, the legal person is an inanimate entity, created by the state and subject to the state. The same way the state is subject to the people.

Ask yourself, are you a creature of the state or were you made by the state? Are you subject to the state? Look up Bovier’s original law dictionary, I believe 1854.

The usual legal definition for the legal term, 'person' is a natural 'person', firm, partnership, or corporation.

In common Amerikan-English and reason dictates that one does not define a term with the same term being defined. However, the term 'person' here in the definition means that status or political entity of the individual associated with that status.

Additionally, a principle inlaw states when a thing is defined by a certain class of things it excludes other classes of things. In other words, if one is describing a thing as a fruit & lists other fruits along w/ it, then it excludes the other classes such as vegetables. Therefore, in our subject definition, we see that all described entities are legal fictions, creatures of the state or made by the state & therefore, excludes everything else, including living souls of mankind.

One of our strategies ought to be to disavow the term, ‘person’ & by gosh call ourselves of all things, ‘man’ or perhaps even, ‘woman’. Only people have these absolute fundamental rights, if you’ll agree. The singular for people is not ‘person’ but ‘man’.

Just think of this as a usurpation of the term 'person' the same way the term, 'gay' was corrupted and high-jacked by a segment of the population.

dylon dogs run free's picture
dylon dogs run free 13 years 18 weeks ago

What about the validity of our voting system,ethics.They hold someone to the fire rarely to show they are doing something.Slap thier hand publicly and go back to really screwing the peo-ple.Nuclear proliferation by facist member states engaged in propaganda campaigns,forcing toxic industry on our water ways. All liabilities paid for by the public.Mandated voting machines paid for by the people.No laws to protect us.Why have the American people stood for it! Is it everyone is in survival mode that they can't take the time.What Ethics violations,when they all lie. Why isn't the progressive media exposing the nuclear Industry,makes all ethics violations , budget deficiets pale.

VictorLozano's picture
VictorLozano 13 years 17 weeks ago

So the only people who should be on the supreme court are the ones that agree 100"% with a certain politcial partys view? If not they should be replaced? That's very fair? Idiots!

dnarnadem 13 years 16 weeks ago

"So the only people who should

So the only people who should be on the supreme court are the ones that agree 100"% with a certain politcial partys view? If not they should be replaced? That's very fair? Idiots!"

No, only applies to those who sleep with their wives who lobby corporations for MONEY!! Those are the judges that should not be on the supreme court bench! And that goes for ALL judges!

Watch it with the word calling - it only shows your level of intelligence and lack of education, if any!

Thom's Blog Is On the Move

Hello All

Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.

Please follow us across to - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.

From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom is a national treasure. Read him, embrace him, learn from him, and follow him as we all work for social change."
Robert Greenwald, political activist and founder and president of Brave New Films
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann is a literary descendent of Ben Franklin and Tom Paine. His unflinching observations and deep passion inspire us to explore contemporary culture, politics, and economics; challenge us to face the facts of the societies we are creating; and empower us to demand a better world for our children and grandchildren."
John Perkins, author of the New York Times bestselling book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
From Cracking the Code:
"Thom Hartmann ought to be bronzed. His new book sets off from the same high plane as the last and offers explicit tools and how-to advice that will allow you to see, hear, and feel propaganda when it's directed at you and use the same techniques to refute it. His book would make a deaf-mute a better communicator. I want him on my reading table every day, and if you try one of his books, so will you."
Peter Coyote, actor and author of Sleeping Where I Fall