impeach Justice Thomas?

[Miguel Schor]

I would think the real issue is not whether to impeach J. Thomas but  
whether a procedure that allows someone as divisive as, for example,  
Justice Thomas to be appointed is infirm.  That is an issue on which  
political opponents might actually agree.  The debate over reforming  
the appointments procedure has tended to focus on term limits whereas  
I think a more important reform is requiring supermajority approval  
in the Senate.  Any advantage one political faction might derive from  
appointing someone whose ideology is to their liking is more than  
outweighed by the corrosive effect that such appointments have on the  
trust needed to make democracy work.  The Court should not be a  
football that the left and the right can use to advance their  
respective agendas.

Miguel Schor
Associate Professor of Law
Suffolk University Law School
120 Tremont St.
Boston, MA 02108
617-305-6244
SSRN Webpage http://ssrn.com/author=469730



On Oct 2, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Michael Zimmer wrote:

> When I saw a brief review of the book that focussed on Justice  
> Thomas' revisiting of the whole episode, I did think that Professor  
> Hill might well have a defamation claim. I suppose after the low  
> threshold level of impeachment for President Clinton -- lying about  
> sex -- there would be precedent to support impeaachment.
>
> All that being said, the real issue about Justice Thomas, for  
> himself as well, I suppose, for the House, is what revisiting this  
> by him after all this time says about Justice Thomas' stability,  
> psychological state, etc. Justice Thomas' writing in the  
> affirmative action cases particularly seem to be a crying out by  
> someone who is not at all able to come to grips with who he is.  
> Does desparately desiring and needing public vindication after all  
> this time about who one is, presumably to help resolve his self- 
> identificataion, indicate such an incapacity to serve as a Justice  
> as to justify impeachment?  That, I think is the real question.
>
>
> Michael J. Zimmer
> Professor of Law
> Seton Hall Law School
> One Newark Center
> Newark, NJ 07102
> 973.642.8833
> 973.642.8194 fax
>
> -----conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu wrote: -----
>
> To: mpollack at ajsl.us, conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> From: "Paul Horwitz" <phorwitz at hotmail.com>
> Sent by: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> Date: 10/02/2007 08:13AM
> Subject: RE: impeach Justice Thomas?
>
> Well, it's a nice conversation-starter, to be sure.  But before  
> taking the
> bait, one might want a little clarification.  Are you simply saying  
> that
> Justice Thomas may have committed what you would view as an  
> impeachable
> offense?  Or are you saying that he *should* be impeached?
>
>
> >From: "Malla Pollack" <mpollack at ajsl.us>
> >To: <conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>
> >Subject: impeach Justice Thomas?
> >Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:54:28 -0500
> >
> >According to the information in Anita Hill's NY Times OP Ed today,  
> Thomas'
> >new book includes defamatory material (though she does not use  
> this term).
> >I would consider this an impeachable offense.  Comments?
> >
> >
> >
> >Malla Pollack
> >
> >Professor, American Justice School of Law
> >
> >mpollack at ajsl.us
> >
> >270-744-3300 x 28
> >
> >articles http://works.bepress.com/malla_pollack/
> >
> >
> >
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20071002/e62a0408/attachment.htm