No VLWC, so no impeachment of Perjurer Thomas

[boutons_deux]

We now have at least 2 women saying Thomas perjured himself in his SCOTUS appointment hearings (the right always puts forward wonderful, honest, trustworthy, moral, ethical human beings of impeccable credentials).

Or is sworn testimony under oath before Congress not required of VRWC appointees?

Where is the Impeach Clarence Thomas lynch mob?

[George Gervin's Afro]

President's lie, Congressmen lie, SC Justice's lie.... par for the course..

[johnsmith]

I love it, Boutons goes all Darrin and cries about something that ultimately doesn't matter and then GGA, who generally is far left, even acknowledges the "who gives a shit" factor.


Boutons, have you noticed that no one gives a fuck what you post in this forum?

[boutons_deux]

Thanks for posting.

[johnsmith]

:lol You bet :tu

[boutons_deux]

If it were a Repug president and Repug Congress with 5 lib -4 VRWC with Thomas being a flaming liberal rather than a extremist scumbag, the VRWC would have already filed for impeachment in order to appoint a conservative and flip the court 5-4 conservative.

[johnsmith]

If it were a Repug president and Repug Congress with Thomas being a flaming liberal rather than a extremist scumbag, the VRWC would have already filed for impeachment.

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. And if the Broncos wouldn't have had the facemask penalty they would have won. And if Obama wasn't ever born he wouldn't be the President. And if the Spurs never drafted Duncan they wouldn't have been so good............and so on, and so on, and so on, and so on.

[BlairForceDejuan]

In your alternate reality you can only have one provable unprovable! Either Obama prevented Armageddon or Thomas would have been impeached. One or the other!

VRWC!

[boutons_deux]

"Either Obama prevented Armageddon"

You Lie, You Typical

"Thomas would have been impeached"

Thomas SHOULD be impeached. But the Dems don't have the balls, even with the balance of the SC in play.

[George Gervin's Afro]

fyi

I think a SC justice perjures himself should be disqualifed from the court..

[boutons_deux]

perjury before the Senate, absolutely.

[Ignignokt]

wish whottt was here to put boutons part deuce part corn in a lock box.

[boutons_deux]

I'd bitch slap Whott like anybody else. He was as double-standard as any extreme right-winger. All his cherry-picking and "arguments" and "data" were just bullshit.

Clinton witch-hunted into perjury, bad.

Thomas in the Senate perjury, no call.

[johnsmith]

Hey look at that, everyone is continuing to not give a fuck about what boutons has to say.........shocker.

[boutons_deux]

The House is duty-bound to Bring Articles of Impeachment against Clarence Thomas

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas can and should be impeached. The case and the grounds for impeachment proceedings against him are virtually iron-clad. The evidence is compelling that Thomas perjured himself in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his court confirmation hearings in 1991. The evidence is equally compelling that this constituted lying under oath to Congress during the hearings.

Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that a Supreme Court Justice that "lacks good behavior" can be impeached. This is not an ambiguous, subjective term. It has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness as the 'high crimes and misdemeanors" clause that unequivocally mandates that the House of Representatives initiate impeachment proceedings against any public official, or federal judge in violation of that provision.

Title 18 of the U.S. Code. It states that any official of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the government of the United States who knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry can be impeached. In other words lying to Congress is not only an impeachable offense. It's also illegal.

Thomas answered: "I deny each and every single allegation against me today that suggested in any way that I had conversations of a sexual nature or about pornographic material with Anita Hill, that I ever attempted to date her, that I ever had any personal sexual interest in her, or that I in any way ever harassed her. "

The issue is his apparent perjured testimony to a congressional body about his words and conduct. There is no statute of limitations on bringing impeachment proceedings against officials who lie to Congress. The U.S. Code and the Constitution clearly spell out that when there's evidence a Supreme Court justice may have lied under oath the House must bring articles of impeachment to determine guilt or innocence.

The ball is now squarely in the court of House judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers Jr.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/the-house-is-duty-bound-t_b_773022.html?view=print

=================

If Conyers doesn't take this opportunity to swing the court 5-4 non-extremist-pro-business/anti-citizen, the Dems will prove once again they're emasculated.

[Wild Cobra]

fyi

I think a SC justice perjures himself should be disqualifed from the court..
You have to prove it though.