Clarence Thomas Should Be Impeached

SCOTUS is failing us, and Clarence Thomas is one of the reasons

Editorial rights purchased from iStock. Photo by Bill Chizek.

Today (June 23, 2022), Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion to eliminate current restrictions on the concealed carry of guns. In short, it doesn’t matter if guns are dangerous or are being used to murder children in schools or strangers on the streets — the Second Amendment is once again being cited to justify allowing individuals to carry a weapon into any situation, despite how dangerous that might be.

I have two questions for those in agreement with this opinion: 1) What part of arming the citizenry to maintain a “well regulated Militia” translates into allowing people to wander around town with a gun? 2) How is a single person with a concealed weapon either “well regulated” or part of a “Militia”?

For people who tout the logic of an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, SCOTUS seems to have no trouble ignoring the meaning of the words that comprise the Second Amendment. Instead, they focus on redefining words at will to create precedents that defy logic (why make it easier for angry people to use guns in public places?) and the dictionary (ignoring the meanings of both “well regulated” and “Militia.”)

According to the opinion, their decision relies on “historical traditions of the past.” But as New York City Mayor Eric Adams pointed out in a press conference earlier today, “This decision makes everyone less safe. In relying on the past, it ignores the dangers we are confronted with in the present.”

Like the leaked opinion written to justify overturning Roe V. Wade, this decision shows how regressive the current Supreme Court is. It is a sad commentary on American culture that the highest court in the land is incapable of incorporating prior precedent with current reality.

This decision not only nullifies New York state law, which is aimed at protecting citizens from violent actions impulsively taken in the heat of the moment — it represents a slap in the face to all lawmakers, Democratic and Republican alike, who have been working tirelessly since the Uvalde school shooting to deliver effective gun safety legislation.

N.Y. Gov. Signs 10 Gun Safety Bills into Law, Sets New Precedent: 'Thoughts and Prayers Won't Fix…

Senate poised to pass first major gun safety legislation in decades following bipartisan agreement

SCOTUS may as well be shouting from the rooftops, “We live in the past and have no interest in the present.”

While it may be tempting to treat this issue as just another fight between the left and the right, it’s worth noting that two former SCOTUS justices, Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Warren Berger (both Republicans), have gone on record as being critical of the Second Amendment, and in particular of its present interpretation.

What does the Second Amendment's 'well regulated' really mean? | Opinion

As far back as 1991, Justice Burger made his opinion clear:

“If I were writing the Bill of Rights now, there wouldn’t be any such thing as the Second Amendment, that a ‘well regulated Militia’ being necessary for the defense of the state, that people (have the) right to bear arms. This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

Justice Stevens went even further in his condemnation of the Second Amendment, suggesting in a piece written this year that gun control activists should be fighting to repeal it.

“Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment . … Today, that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”

This decision, representing yet another example of the emboldened regression of the backward right, made possible by the far-right majority on the court (thanks to former-president Trump’s three Supreme Court appointees), makes a strong case for SCOTUS reform, specifically, for term limits.

Just as Justice Alioto’s embarrassing opinion in the leaked document poised to bring about the reversal of Roe V. Wade showed a shocking reliance on the laws and norms of the 18th century, Clarence Thomas appears equally eager to return us to the unevolved thinking of the past. Dogma without empathy is the reigning principle of SCOTUS today.

Clearly, it is too much to ask that Supreme Court Justices be compassionate — but is it also too much to ask that they have good judgment?

---

As the January 6th Committee meetings unfold, we can expect to hear more about how Ginny Thomas participated in the insurrection and coup attempt of January 6th. We should also be reminded that Justice Thomas was the single dissenting vote in the decision to release information about the lead-up to the insurrection — information that may further implicate his wife, Ginny.

Justice Thomas should have recused himself from participating in that decision, given his wife’s involvement. But as with too much of our political system, our ethics are not bound by law. Instead, it’s been assumed that honor and judgment are inherently found in members of the Supreme Court — an assumption that has, unfortunately, been proven groundless.

While there are no laws to prosecute an unethical Supreme Court justice, there is a path to removing a member who behaves unethically or is otherwise deemed unfit. It is the same remedy we have for addressing inappropriate behavior by a president: impeachment.

How To Impeach A Supreme Court Justice- The Procedure

The process for the impeachment of a Supreme Court justice is as long and complicated as the impeachment of a president. Yet we managed to impeach the former president twice.

Impeaching Clarence Thomas now, while Biden is still in office, will serve two ends: first, it will prevent an unethical and unfit justice from doing further damage to our country, and second, it will allow for a more balanced Supreme Court in the future. It sounds like a win-win to me.