Jonathan Turley Brings Bad News To The Liberals That Want To Impeach Justice Clarence Thomas

He’s out of hospital – he’s back, and more importantly – he’s got all the support he needs!

Join The True Defender Telegram Chanel Here:

The Dems want to impeach Justice Thomas because his wife, like millions of Americans, was worried about the 2020 election sham.

Justice Thomas’s wife was at the January 6th rally, as were hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Americans – and somehow the left has deemed that an “impeachable offense” for her husband.

The left aren’t the only ones who can hold rallies and protest.

We can do it too, and it’s not an “impeachable offense.”

And that’s precisely the bad news Professor Turley has for liberals… they have no grounds to impeach Justice Thomas.

REad Professor Turley’s detailed insight opinion on the issue.

“Rep. IIhan Omar (D., Minn.) was the first member of Congress to call for Thomas to be impeached when it was revealed that the Jan. 6th Commission found 29 messages of his wife, Ginni, to the White House. MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan echoed the call for impeachment as did former Sen. Barbara Boxer and others.

A well-known Republican activist and Trump supporter, Thomas encouraged then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to pursue legal and legislative challenges to what she viewed as a stolen election.

She was not alone. Millions of Republicans believed that the election was rigged and many still do. The reason that Ginni Thomas’ messages were seized is not because she was a key figure in the investigation but that the Commission has demanded any messages that deal with such challenges or the rally — a scope that has been criticized as overbroad. Congress then leaked the messages and the media did the rest.

There is no evidence that Ginni Thomas ever encouraged violence or was even present at the Capitol during the riot. Thomas said that she attended the Ellipse rally on Jan. 6 but left early, before Trump spoke, and never went to the Capitol.

Even in the age of the “snap impeachment,” this is little more than a snap judgment on a poorly understood record.

First, these figures are calling for Thomas to be impeached for violating the Judicial Code of Ethics because he voted on a challenge to the Commission obtaining White House messages and emails. (For the record, I publicly stated that the Commission should prevail on those demands). In January, the House won an 8-1 victory before the Supreme Court, which rejected Trump’s privilege objections to the release of White House materials. There was only one dissenting vote: Thomas.

However, the justices have long insisted that they are not compelled to follow the Code of Judicial Conduct. I have long disagreed with that view and have called for Congress to mandate the application of the code to the Court. Yet, the Court has maintained that such conflict rules are not mandatory and many have refused to recuse themselves in circumstances that were flagged as possible violations.

For its part, Congress has decided not to mandate compliance with these rules. While federal law (28 U.S. 455) requires judges to recuse from cases where “impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” the Supreme Court itself ruled that while it “defines the circumstances that mandate disqualification of federal judges, it neither prescribes nor prohibits any particular remedy for a violation of that duty.” It remains largely discretionary and Congress has decided not to mandate compliance of justices with the Code itself.

Nevertheless, the members and experts insist that Thomas should be impeached for not following a rule that has been effectively treated as discretionary by both the Court and Congress.

Second, it is not clear that this was a violation. There is nothing in these messages that put Ginni Thomas in legal peril. She was not only engaging in political advocacy but stating the same position that she has largely maintained in public. Indeed, in calling for Justice Thomas’ impeachment, Vanity Fair acknowledges “For anyone familiar with Ginni Thomas, the idea that she would write and send a series of batshit-crazy text messages should not come as a surprise.” Yet, the column suggests that somehow Justice Thomas was seeking to prevent such “unsurprising” positions from being added to her well-known positions in the public record.

Third, it appears that the January case was immaterial to the release of the Thomas messages. As the New Yorker admitted, “Meadows had already turned over to the congressional committee some 2,300 texts — and … they included the 29-message exchange between him and Ginni Thomas.” Thus, the messages of his wife were already disclosed when Justice Thomas was voting in the case. Indeed, Congress could have subpoenaed those messages directly from Ginni Thomas without facing executive privilege barriers.”

Leave a comment or join in the Telegram channel discussion.

Wayne DupreeJonathan Turley

Ava Garcia

A small town girl, dreaming big, expecting to change the world with presenting the truthful events of the world today. Law degree with a master in criminology, and a devoted journalist for over 7 years, and counting. "The pen is mightier than the sword."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

For continue reading on the site please disable the Ad-block