#MeToo, Turns On Justice Thomas
Hillary Clinton and the left made it no secret that one of the reasons this election was so important, with one position opened in the Supreme Court and possibly one or two spots opening, who won the election could shape the court for years to come. They lost, now they are trying to do what they couldn’t do through election to do with guile, weaponizing #MeToo to remove a sitting justice Thomas Clarence through impeachment.
As I had predicted with the #MeToo we would see this quickly turn from a movement of empowering women to instead being weaponized and used by the left to try to achieve what they couldn’t in the polls; sadly, as this is done the power this movement has given women will be lost just like claims of racism lost its control as it was abused.
We now see in a post by Jill Abramson in a piece with New York Magazine, former Editor of New York Times Jill Abramson gives a case to use #MeToo to try to set in motion the impeachment of a sitting justice. The only time this has ever been attempted due to complaints by President Jefferson against Justice Samuel Chase who was a federalist, and more specifically that the court and their Clarence Thomas, Jill Abramson, New York Journal, reviews were too highly politicized and went to remove all Federalist from the court, in a vote in the House filed eight articles of impeachment, then passed through the impeachment to the Senate, the Senate put a stop to this, it also a quick end to an administration being able to remove justices that did not believe in their political views.
Now in all fairness when the Justice took power he right away set out to politicize his position, went on attacks to try to undo what he saw a threat to the nation, this was never his place, that was supposed to be the politicians, not a justice of the high court, but the Senate would have never expelled him, he was after all one of the members who aided in creating the constitution and a signatory of the Declaration of Independence. But Clarence Thomas is nothing like this, unlike Justice Ginsburg his more subdued on voicing his political leanings.
There is also the case of impeachment, what would be the charge? In the confirmation, we saw an accusation by Anita Hill raised against Justice Thomas, the claim at the time was he made sexual comments to her about various subjects, this was seen as harassment, this quickly turned into a he said she said show, but nothing could be proven so the confirmations went forward to a vote, one where Justice Thomas was put on the bench.
Now going on 27 years later we are being asked to revisit these confirmation hearings and by mere accusations to impeach a sitting justice. Jill Abramson accuses Justice Thomas of lying, and by so doing claims she has grounds for impeachment, but she could not be further from the truth, that was already brought before Congress, it was rejected 27 years ago so by what legal precedent does she claim to a right to readdress this? The simple truth is there is none; you can’t convict on just accusation. Also, there are no accusations that Justice Thomas in any way has violated any law or any improper activity in the 27 years sitting on the bench.
What we are seeing is more a move from the left to do what they couldn’t at the voting booth now trying to circumvent the process and will of the nation and try to impose their will on all. We are seeing a fear from the left in their next attempt to do what they now see is becoming less and less likely, remove Trump from the White House, so to try to maintain what they see as a damage to their cause in control of the Supreme Court, they are trying through guile to remove what they see as the greatest obstacle to their move to reshape the nation in the manner they wish.
In the article “Is Trump Trying To Change The Courts Quietly? You Bet He is!” I stated:
“The biggest worry now from the left is if Trump wins a second term, he could be faced with replacing one to three more justices, Justice Ginsburg is nearing the end of her term, we could see a huge shift in the high court if she retires or passes away, the same with JudgeBreyer, we could potentially see the courts if you see a vacant seat in the next two years with either of these two move the court more to the right, leaving only two democratic appointed justices in the court, thus effecting our highest courts … for the next 15 to 20 years.
What we are now seeing is a attempt to stop what I had said, the left knows that a conservative high court will put in jeopardy their plans to reshape this nation in the way they wish, they need activist judges that are more concerned about political leanings then in the constitution, if you have a court full of Justices that will not go along with this type of thought you will find them standing as a roadblock against their future goals.