Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Clarence Thomas Poll


vcczar

Clarence Thomas Poll  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. Is the Clarence Thomas scandals enough to warrant that he resign or face impeachment?

    • There is no scandal
    • It's scandalous, but it doesn't warrant any sort of severe punishment.
    • He should face impeachment but shouldn't be forced to resign unless the impeachment trial convicts him.
    • He should be forced to resign via impeachment or not.
    • I don't know
  2. 2. Do you approve of Clarence Thomas's service as a justice

  3. 3. If Clarence Thomas resigns in 2023 or early 2024, do you expect Biden to get to name a new Supreme Court Justice?

    • Yes, because the GOP is the minority party in the Senate.
    • No, because Manchin and Sinema will join with the entire GOP and block everyone Biden nominates.
    • I don't know
  4. 4. If Biden get's to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, who do you think he should nominate?

    • Merrick Garland as a gesture to Obama
    • Sally Yates as a slap in the face to Trump
      0
    • A left-leaning judge who is much younger than either Garland or Yates, so that the judge will likely serve longer on the Court.
    • Another left-leaning option.
      0
    • Biden should be forced to pick a conservative judge since a Thomas removal will be unusual.
    • I don't know
  5. 5. If Thomas is impeached or resigns, does this hurt the legacy of Pres. George HW Bush who nominated him?

    • Probably so
    • Probably not
    • I don't know
      0


Recommended Posts

Irrespective of ideology, the person who succeeds Clarence Thomas (however he leaves office, death, resignation, or impeachment) ought to be an African American. To make the successor of Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas an old white guy would be spittle in the face of the black community as a whole, and an insult to the great many Black judges in this country especially. Diversity matters at every level of society (diversity of thought, yes, but also diversity of background) because that’s how we avoid stagnation.

It’d also be horrible optics in the run up to an election year where Black voters will form the backbone of Joe Biden’s coalition.

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanna say none of this scandal stuff has significantly impacted my opinion of Clarence already. 
 

As the lone dissenter in many 2020 election cases where Trump allies tried to overturn the result is where he lost me. Even if I support the overturning of Roe, and the stances he takes on other decisions, he’s already proven himself to be unfit for the last 3 years now. 

  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

Irrespective of ideology, the person who succeeds Clarence Thomas (however he leaves office, death, resignation, or impeachment) ought to be an African American.

I don't think this very static approach would be wise here tbh. If we take the court as it is now as a blueprint for the composition of the courts to come, we'll always see a 5-4 male to female court with two black justices, one Jewish and so on. Furthermore this would de facto take away the possibility for sexual minority justices or a female Chief Justice. And even if we ignore that and believe that white male justices can be exchanged with ethnic or sexual minority justices, we couldn't really go back after having nine minority justices, could we?  

I mean I see where you are coming from, and that we should not undo the successes of the past, but as a politician I wouldn't endorse limiting the president's choices on picking someone due to belonging to a minority group. Somehow this trend of identity politics in contrast to good ol' big tent politics is worrying.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

I don't think this very static approach would be wise here tbh. If we take the court as it is now as a blueprint for the composition of the courts to come, we'll always see a 5-4 male to female court with two black justices, one Jewish and so on. Furthermore this would de facto take away the possibility for sexual minority justices or a female Chief Justice. And even if we ignore that and believe that white male justices can be exchanged with ethnic or sexual minority justices, we couldn't really go back after having nine minority justices, could we?  

I mean I see where you are coming from, and that we should not undo the successes of the past, but as a politician I wouldn't endorse limiting the president's choices on picking someone due to belonging to a minority group. Somehow this trend of identity politics in contrast to good ol' big tent politics is worrying.

This. Especially when you consider Biden has already appointed KBJ, and is on track to appoint more district Judges, etc. than Trump. And obviously Biden has appointed a very diverse group to the lower courts. I doubt African Americans will care given who he’s already appointed. Even if the seats legacy is Clarence and Thurgood, the pick should be based on something else.  I doubt many are considering these abstract factors. 

  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pringles said:

This. Especially when you consider Biden has already appointed KBJ, and is on track to appoint more district Judges, etc. than Trump. 

Well, I think he was on track before the midterms. But now he's fallen behind, I believe. Thanks to a special someone who's basically living in a hospital bed and still refuses to resign.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rezi said:

Well, I think he was on track before the midterms. But now he's fallen behind, I believe. Thanks to a special someone who's basically living in a hospital bed and still refuses to resign.

Yeah, but far left feminists believe you’re a sexist pig for saying that. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Pringles said:

Yeah, but far left feminists believe you’re a sexist pig for saying that. 

Some people just never learn. RBG's ego is the reason Roe v Wade got repealed but for some reason most liberals don't like to mention that part of her legacy.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Pringles said:

As the lone dissenter in many 2020 election cases where Trump allies tried to overturn the result is where he lost me. Even if I support the overturning of Roe, and the stances he takes on other decisions, he’s already proven himself to be unfit for the last 3 years now. 

You aren't gonna like what I'm telling you here, but I feel obligated to come to Clarence's defense here. Supreme Court Justices are generally regarded as one of the most intelligent people. Rightfully so, I'd say. If one of them agrees with your challenge, doesn't that mean that your arguments might have at least some sort of legal basis? I mean he didn't cheer on your average QAnon-rioter Bumfuck McGee who came to the court and simply yelled "the election was stolen". I just think that he isn't unfit for office, just because he interpretated the law in a way we don't like. I disagreed with Justice Ginsburg a lot I guess, but I still acknowledge that she was a very intelligent person who knew what she was doing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

You aren't gonna like what I'm telling you here, but I feel obligated to come to Clarence's defense here. Supreme Court Justices are generally regarded as one of the most intelligent people. Rightfully so, I'd say. If one of them agrees with your challenge, doesn't that mean that your arguments might have at least some sort of legal basis? I mean he didn't cheer on your average QAnon-rioter Bumfuck McGee who came to the court and simply yelled "the election was stolen". I just think that he isn't unfit for office, just because he interpretated the law in a way we don't like. I disagreed with Justice Ginsburg a lot I guess, but I still acknowledge that she was a very intelligent person who knew what she was doing. 

I’m not surprised in the slightest you’ve come to his defense. I disagreed a lot with Justice Ginsburg as well. In fact I respect her a lot too, especially for admitting Roe was on shaky legal ground and would likely be overturned one day. However I find Clarence’s dissenting opinions utterly disingenuous, and I believe anybody willing to look at it with an open mind can see that. 
 

The man already admitted that his purpose on the court is to make liberals angry. I can look at plenty of other Justices past or present who have made commentary that I don’t believe is becoming of a Justice, but Clarence takes the cake and he’s proven so time and time again. That doesn’t mean I don’t think he’s intelligent. 
 

I think he’s blinded by ideological loyalty and a wife who’s proven to have aided MAGA in attempting to overturn the 2020 election. Look at the text messages. 
 

The way he interpreted the law is obviously going to be a matter of opinion in this country, but I think it’s telling when the entire court, even those closer to his ideology and judicial philosophy aren’t hopping aboard with his dissent. 
 

Even then, depending on the case we are looking at, the core of the issue in many of them were that other states do not have the right to sue other states over their own election laws. 
 

At the end of the day it’s going to be a matter of opinion between you and me regardless, but I don’t think it’s hard to see Thomas is unfit to serve on the Court at this point. And I think blindly defending him is dangerous, just as blindly defending anyone who I happen to agree with. If you asked me this many years ago I’d be perfectly fine with Clarence Thomas. I no longer am. 

  • Based 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supreme Court in general, isn't something I support. The entire system is built to be politicized and doesn't represent the idea of a blind judicial branch that doesn't follow the political divide in the USA. A serious reform should be established to it, to represent the actual meaning of the constitution of giving rights to the people and stopping the reach of both STATE and FEDERAL government reach in taking away the rights of the common American. NOT to remove Federal or State laws that protect those rights from others.

Now, Clarence Thomas, I am sorry but this guy doesn't deserve to be a Supreme Justice or a judge. The overturning of Roe was a complete disaster, they could have done a different way by allowing the states to allow abortion but can ban it at around any stage except an early stage like 10 or 14. In general I don't support the SC or its justices. RBJ made a giant mistake not retiring and GQP exploited that.

  • Like 1
  • Disagree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Blockmon said:

Supreme Court in general, isn't something I support. The entire system is built to be politicized and doesn't represent the idea of a blind judicial branch that doesn't follow the political divide in the USA. A serious reform should be established to it, to represent the actual meaning of the constitution of giving rights to the people and stopping the reach of both STATE and FEDERAL government reach in taking away the rights of the common American. NOT to remove Federal or State laws that protect those rights from others.

Now, Clarence Thomas, I am sorry but this guy doesn't deserve to be a Supreme Justice or a judge. The overturning of Roe was a complete disaster, they could have done a different way by allowing the states to allow abortion but can ban it at around any stage except an early stage like 10 or 14. In general I don't support the SC or its justices. RBJ made a giant mistake not retiring and GQP exploited that.

I disagree, in fact, I think the Supreme Court is probably the only part of our government that works effectively and exactly as it should.

  • Like 3
  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DakotaHale said:

I disagree, in fact, I think the Supreme Court is probably the only part of our government that works effectively and exactly as it should.

I disagree on that and I will try to present why I believe a reform is needed for the supreme court or to add more checks in it.

The Supreme Court IMO has two problems:
1. Its decisions are now almost impossible to try and reverse or change unless decades after it has been made. EX, its really hard to impossible for Congress to pass an amendment that will reverse a viewpoint.
2. It doesn't represent the view of the people at this current time. Ex, abortion was overturned by 6-3, from a poll by Pew research (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/) 61% of Americans believe it should be legal in most cases. if we account that one justice represents 11% of the Americans then it completely doesn't make sense that it should be overruled instead changed to have it by states and having some protection if many accept it but rather it be legal for SOME cases.

the reform can be anything from adding more justices, adding term limits, forcing justices to say their views before being in Court and having a punishment for lying, Terms requiring confirmation every 8 years, or even include a jury like system of random Americans where they can have a vote too as a collective to try to give a voice to people in judicial branch.
The reason for why most americans not liking supreme court or gov't rather it be con or lb, is because of the big tent parties but that is different discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Blockmon said:

I disagree on that and I will try to present why I believe a reform is needed for the supreme court or to add more checks in it.

The Supreme Court IMO has two problems:
1. Its decisions are now almost impossible to try and reverse or change unless decades after it has been made. EX, its really hard to impossible for Congress to pass an amendment that will reverse a viewpoint.
2. It doesn't represent the view of the people at this current time. Ex, abortion was overturned by 6-3, from a poll by Pew research (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/) 61% of Americans believe it should be legal in most cases. if we account that one justice represents 11% of the Americans then it completely doesn't make sense that it should be overruled instead changed to have it by states and having some protection if many accept it but rather it be legal for SOME cases.

the reform can be anything from adding more justices, adding term limits, forcing justices to say their views before being in Court and having a punishment for lying, Terms requiring confirmation every 8 years, or even include a jury like system of random Americans where they can have a vote too as a collective to try to give a voice to people in judicial branch.
The reason for why most americans not liking supreme court or gov't rather it be con or lb, is because of the big tent parties but that is different discussion.

There is only one way to deal with a problematic Supreme Court: The Jacksonian way. "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!"

  • Like 1
  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Blockmon said:

It doesn't represent the view of the people at this current time. Ex, abortion was overturned by 6-3, from a poll by Pew research

Any Court of Law should not be subject to public opinion or inappropriate outside pressure. If that was the case what if it was popular to murder people? To blow up buildings? Should the Court rule in their favor because it represents the view of the people? The Supreme Court especially is intended as the final stop, the "Buck stops here." When matters pertain to tough legal challenges or cases that have gone through lower courts already and constantly get appealed.

The Rule of Law and the Supreme Court is meant to interpret the law as is and protect people. Not to side with public opinion. It is perfectly acceptable to be Pro-Choice and not like the Roe V Wade overturning, I'm not shaming anybody for that even if I vehemently disagree, it's a polarizing topic. 

However, states are now free to decide how they want to deal with abortion which in my opinion is how it should've always been. I'm pro-life. I want it largely banned barring the main exceptions, and even I think 6 weeks is too harsh of a law. If New York wants to murder babies up until their birth (for any reason), let them. It's not my moral conscience on the line. 

I also believe anybody calling for a national abortion ban (mostly MAGA Republicans or Far Right ones) are hypocrites. The entire point of the Pro-Life movement that fought for decades to get this decision overturned wanted it to be overturned so the STATES could have the right to decide what they want to do concerning abortion. That is where we're at. 

God help us all if public opinion was the deciding factor of our laws. 

  • Like 1
  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rezi said:

Liberals who think the Supreme Court should use public opinion when you ask them what public opinion was at the time of Brown v Board of Education and Loving v Virginia:

Walter White GIFs | Tenor

Senator John Cornyn was called a racist for making that very point. LOL. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then it's fine to leave the decision that could affect millions of Americans (who can't switch states) by just 9 people? Most urbanized cities in the south where Anti-Choice laws are put into effect are Democrats/pro-choice. They are affected by a decision they can't change when most of the system allows land to win instead of people. The check that was given by the Founding Fathers to go against the Supreme Court was Amendments and you can wish for one to pass in this polarized time in US History. Giving this much power to one branch of government that only has nine members in it doesn't sound very much republic. 
also just out of the arguments: It is amazing and fun to see the many other views from other people. Even if I severely disagree with many of the points that you guys present. I am very prog since I live in a lib state aka Massholes. Getting to see the views of others is awesome and is a big part of why I joined this forum! 😄

  • Like 1
  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beholding the Supreme Court to public opinion for one puts too much faith into humanity, but it also (I think) renders the point of the court moot. At that point we might as well become a direct democracy and decide everything via referenda. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cenzonico said:

Beholding the Supreme Court to public opinion for one puts too much faith into humanity, but it also (I think) renders the point of the court moot. At that point we might as well become a direct democracy and decide everything via referenda. 

The reform I gave was either to give jury like system a voice in supreme court having one vote not significant neither defining as remember overturning Roe was 6-3 while brown was 9-0.
or even have it to give a opinion to the Supreme Court atleast letting people the ability of telling the judges what they think broading the spectrum of voices in the Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Blockmon said:

The reform I gave was either to give jury like system a voice in supreme court having one vote not significant neither defining as remember overturning Roe was 6-3 while brown was 9-0.
or even have it to give a opinion to the Supreme Court atleast letting people the ability of telling the judges what they think broading the spectrum of voices in the Court.

Should Cox v Louisiana get looked at again? Because that was a major Civil Rights-Era case that was a 7-2 decision. 

Most court decisions are actually pretty near-unanimous, all things considered. It's these landmark cases that get the most attention. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Blockmon said:

The reform I gave was either to give jury like system a voice in supreme court having one vote not significant neither defining as remember overturning Roe was 6-3 while brown was 9-0.
or even have it to give a opinion to the Supreme Court atleast letting people the ability of telling the judges what they think broading the spectrum of voices in the Court.

The entire point of the Supreme Court is to have a panel of the nation’s top nine jurists who debate, and decide on the constitutionality of legislation. Injecting a jury of laymen into the process would ruin what makes the whole thing work. The people already have their voice in government, it’s call Congress, and the President, and quite frankly the system is a bit too Democratic as it is. What the people want is not always what is right or even what is good for them. The founders realized this, but with the democratization of the senate, and the failure of the electoral college to check the power of the people, the only true bulwark against populism left is the Supreme Court.

  • Like 1
  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Pringles said:

Should Cox v Louisiana get looked at again? Because that was a major Civil Rights-Era case that was a 7-2 decision. 

Most court decisions are actually pretty near-unanimous, all things considered. It's these landmark cases that get the most attention. 

 

6 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

The entire point of the Supreme Court is to have a panel of the nation’s top nine jurists who debate, and decide on the constitutionality of legislation. Injecting a jury of laymen into the process would ruin what makes the whole thing work. The people already have their voice in government, it’s call Congress, and the President, and quite frankly the system is a bit too Democratic as it is. What the people want is not always what is right or even what is good for them. The founders realized this, but with the democratization of the senate, and the failure of the electoral college to check the power of the people, the only true bulwark against populism left is the Supreme Court.

Yup and thats where we differ view, I personally hate the establishment and how power is not in held by the people instead by two parties that are way to big to represent the many voices of people. I massively prefer a large number of political parties and cabinet politics instead of this winner takes all. It forces people to work together and split the issue. But this is outside of the discussion of the supreme court so I think debate ends as its problem of views on how much democracy should be given to people not about the supreme court. I highly enjoyed this debate and hope you all have an amazing day!

  • Thanks 1
  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pringles said:

Any Court of Law should not be subject to public opinion or inappropriate outside pressure. If that was the case what if it was popular to murder people? 

28th amendment: No Federal, State, or local government may restrict the right of men to kill each other.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Imperator Taco Cat said:

28th amendment: No Federal, State, or local government may restrict the right of men to kill each other.

Truly the most ideal of societies.

  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...