Nope

Dems must do all they can to expose 'corrupt' Clarence Thomas and 'destroy his reputation': journalisthttps://t.co/1ruTUhFKvi

— Raw Story (@RawStory) April 11, 2023

"ProPublica's report last week is jaw-dropping," Tomasky writes. "In the end, it shows this: Thomas used to report his gifts from right-wing billionaire Harlan Crow…. Rather than stop accepting the gifts, he just decided to stop reporting them — which ProPublica says is against the law. Can he be impeached? Not now, with the GOP in control of the House. If that changes, sure, they can try, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others have suggested." 

Tomasky continues, "Of course, he would be acquitted in the Senate, where two-thirds are required to convict…. But that's no reason for Democrats not to do it. In fact, as I suspect AOC understands, the way partisanship works today in this country, that's precisely an excellent reason to do it." 

The journalist argues that even though the U.S. is probably stuck with Thomas, it's important to make sure that his reputation suffers as badly as possible.

I’ve always thought Clarence Thomas was the worst appointment to the Supreme Court in the 20th century. He’s also the poster boy for term limits on the Bench. Federal judges can’t be retired from the bench, but they can be sidelined and removed from active service. This is not a matter of performance, but routine. And, of course, they can be disciplined for what Thomas does with impunity.

I’ve seen Democrats demanding Roberts investigate Thomas. Considering the last such investigation, over the leak of the Dobbs decision, that’s laughable. It’s meant to put Roberts on the hot seat, but “Chief Justice “ is a constitutional office without portfolio. It’s a title only; it brings no real authority with it. The Speaker of the House is third in line to the Presidency. The Chief Justice is just another seat on the court. Roberts can’t force an investigation on Thomas any more than Thomas can force one on him.

So, impeach Thomas? First, the House is at a standstill now looking for people to indict, which is what impeachment is. Do Democrats win back the House promising to do the work of government? Or promising to impeach Thomas? One way improves Congress. The other emulates the Congress we have now. Which one wins in another year?

Democrats take the House, impeach Thomas, and then the Senate, barely in the control of Democrats, does what? Tie up the Senate with a show trial? The outcome is a foregone conclusion. Rather like the second impeachment of Trump, after he’d already lost the election. Did that affect Trump politically at all? The indictment in Manhattan has done more damage, probably because it’s not seen as political (despite Trump’s best efforts).

The ProPublica story is as damaging to Thomas as impeachment would be, and it’s not going to be seen as being merely political (Thomas doesn’t have a deep well of public goodwill to draw on). More reporting on Thomas will do all we can do to expose him and perhaps force him to resign, especially if his fellow Justices turn against him. He is a liability to the Court, and to the justice system. Make that as clear as possible, and let the consequences flow. Even in these polarized times the public has standards that I think it is rather anxious to restore. And ultimately, even the Court follows public opinion.