It's Time To Impeach Justice Thomas

"Morality, like math, is its Own justification" - ME

This is June 21, 2011 and it turned summer about a half hour ago on this overcast day. I guess they were wrong about today being a scorcher. It’s time for once and for all to impeach Justice Clarence Thomas and remove him from the Supreme Court bench. He has never had that ethereal quality called “Judicial temperament”. I’m not sure that a man addicted to the sleaziest of pornography is the “right sort” we want to elevate to what Thom Hartman refers to as “black robed Royalty in this country”. The Supreme Court’s own claimed role of ruling laws “unconstitutional” may in itself be an unconstitutional act, how be it an long established one. The old testament uses the same word for judges as for “gods”, that being the “Elohem”. I don’t believe Thomas was showing “judicial temperament” when he referred to the Anita Hill charges as a “high tech lynching”. That’s the sort of race card dealing that would even make Johnny Cochrin blush. Of course it seems stranger than anything to me that Justice Thomas “never asks questions” as the eight other justices so, when a matter is being argued before the bench. I’m seen Thomas in action myself on C-Span, or rather should I say “not in action”. I think he was put there as a “token nigger” (pardon my French) by Bush 41 after Justice Marshal retired from the bench. That whole confirmation process has always been a swirl of controversy. Should a justice be fired for hating women? Perhaps not. But as you know there is a large body of rulings where Justice Thomas should have recuiised himself and didn’t. Many involve associations of his wife. Thomas had a direct conflict with the all important Citizen’s United case, the outcome of which dramatically shifted the balance of political power in this country and by itself could have swung the 2010 election to the other party. As you know in the Citizen’s United case, the court unnecessarily broadened the scope of the case to include issues which were not directly at issue. Whoever made this decision was most certainly engaging in that dreaded term, “Judicial Activism”. This case gave businesses the standing of person-hood that no law or congress or presidential executive order ever did. And Thomas is largely responsible for it. I don’t see why he’s being allowed to get away with it. Justice Abe Fortess in the Johnson administration was forced out of office on much less significant charges than Thomas is guilty of. But back then we as a society had a sense of personal honor (remember that word?) that is appallingly lacking today.

On Monday the United States Supreme Court in one of their party line 5 to 4 rulings we’ve seen so much of lately, ruled that female employees don’t have the basis for a class action suit against Wall-Mart to the effect that there is a system wide discrimination policy against them. This overturns a lower court ruling, which says they did. Judge Scelia spoke for the majority saying that “there is no legal glue which holds all these cases together. They ruled that there was no proven edict or order they could point to to substantiate their case. If all of these female employees of Wall-Mart are going to sue in the Courts to redress their grievances against discriminatory promotion policies, then they are going to have to sue individually. This is a simple case of “unided we stand- - and separately we get crushed by the Big Daddy corporations- - - One by One”. You know Wall-Mart just loves this ruling and are popping champaign corks over it. As to what I think about all of this- - - I could swing either way on this issue, actually. I wouldn’t want a ruling coming down that conservatives could rip apart in legal terms. But at the same time I think we all can be pretty sure that Wall-Mart does have some sort of transcending implied policy against promoting women. There are a lot of woman-haters in high place. And Justice Clarence Thomas is a woman hater. For this reason I as one of these wronged women would go after him and get the whole ball rolling on the impeachment thing. There is stuff in the Bible about “not doing the right thing - - even when you might be opposed - - if your conscience tells you you’re wrong. I don’t know whether some of these justices even have a conscience. I think the era of male chovenism is a feature of the past and is fading just like the 20^th Century. I imagine Justice Thomas, like Rush is one of those people who believes that “What a woman really needs is a good man- - - you know, to serve and have them tell you what to do”.

Some of these governors of big states like Jerry Brown and Andrew Cuomo have such a major phobia against “failure” that they assume they can and must “accompelish anything”. Brown wasn’t satisfied with success but insists he wants to get some new tax hikes approved and is vetoing his own party’s action so he can cut some sort of deal with the Republicans to get the tax measure on the ballot. Now the California Controller is saying that the pay of legislators will be docked because they did not submit a "fiscally viable budget in time" even though it's the earliest budget in decades and it's two weeks early. In Andrew Cuomo’s case, I’d say “on the whole issue of gay marriage you either have the votes, or you don’t. And if you don’t you pick up your marbles and go home and take a stand on a different issue”. Now he’s trying to “get in bed” with various interests. Some people in New York City want rent controls established, so this is a part of the bill. Whereas others, I imagine republicans, want a property tax cap, to boost their profits and jack up their equity into the stratosphere like it was here thirty years ago. Property with a low tax rate is worth a lot more on the market than property under a high tax rate. My belief is that all three of these issues are so “disperate” and diverse- - that they should all be handled separately. Personally if it were up to me I would see all three of these measures defeated.

John Huntsman is talking about “civility, humanity, and respect” and that these qualities are lacking today, when he declared his candidacy for President. He’s going for that extinct species, the rational Republican vote. The G O P, as Randy says, is going to despize him. Even Romney will cut him to pieces. They speak of him as being “likeable and pragmatic guy”. Huntsman speaks Manderin Chinese but this is because of his family connections. Of course you all know he was ambassador to China under the Obama administration. He’s also a Mormon and rides motorcycles. So he’s a “maverick” for sure. He won’t last long with all these right wing Purity squads around.

Dr. Levy has announced his "Dream Ticket" and it's Governor Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman, who I hear is really short, which works against candidates. Levy likes Perry because of his record in cutting taxes and bringing jobs to Texas. Apparently over4 40% of all the jobs generated in the whole country are in Texas. Dr. Levy's platform is that "There are no jobs because Obama didn't make jobs his priority in taking office. Instead he favored raising taxes and drove more jobs out of the country so now he'd made the economy worse". On the G M bailout Dr. Levy was against this because "He should have demanded that the Unions renogiate their wages and break existing contracts". When informed that G M has paid back their loan Dr. Levy responds, "No they haven't. Only a small portion of it". On oil it's "The reason why gasoline prices are so high now is because President Obama has stopped all drilling. We have plenty of oil in this country for a long time to come if the President will allow us to tap it". However it seems the reality is that oil production in this country is the highest it's been in a long time. Some may ask "Does Dr. Levy have a doctorate in economics?" Absolutely not. Every one of these statements is so idiotic as to be beyond the pale. Of course whoever the candidate is next year it will be one approved by the Koch Brothers or whoever gives these candidates their talking points. However Randy points out that even rich people like the Koch brothers could be gobbled up and bought out by someone even more powerful, so that the number of truely rich people will be further thinned out, so that there are only a few - - - or one.

Let’s return to the whole bit with cloaked objects. First of all there are objects with primary cloaking and those with secondary cloaking. Those subject to primary cloaking have the ability to cloak certain objects that would remain uncloaked on their own – in regular space, just by virtue of being within the cloak however they are cloaked to outsiders. Cloaked things and people inside a vessel are, of course, material to each other. These secondarily cloaked objects cannot be used to conceil other objects per se. Cloaked people can see other cloaked objects, either primary or secondary. Cloaked people can see uncloaked matter but can't handle it. Objects with secondary cloaking within a vessel exhibit the same optical traits and relation to other matter as in the uncloaked world. No uncloaked object or person can be transported through hyperspace using this particular mode of transportation. When a secondarily cloaked object leaves the environs of primary cloaking, it materializes. But only for a while till it breaks down and begins becomes cloaked. Secondary objects cloaked a long time stay material on the outside for a shorter time than objects cloaked a short time. If an object is cloaked a short enough time, when it enters regular space - it will remain material. However primary cloaked objects will not hide objects with no cloaking at all. Were you to put an entirely uncloaked object in or on a cloaked object it would fall to the floor. I imagine you know by now that cloaking is best done in zero gravity or certain dire things will happen. (see previous) Objects or people intended to exit the ship for their own safety are sobjected to a (translation problem) device that renders their primary cloaking into secondary, so they don't suffer the adverse gravitational consequences of sinking into the ground in continuous gravitational acceleration downward, as in accordence with Newton's laws. I asked Stewart whether there were different ways of cloaking objects and whether two objects cloaked in different manners would have physicality or materiality to each other or not. Stewart refused to say “Yes” or “No” to this but just said “Those- - would be logical deductions”. I asked Stewart if he could describe the process by which molecules are altered to be “cloaked”. Stewart declined. That’s going too far. Actually the “bubble” I spoke of in the last outing is really more of a “test tube” shaft shape. Uncloaked objects will be seen behind this "test tube" space. If this tube or cigar shaped structure has hyperspace cababilities it can be and is suspended in mid air. Objects (clocked) inside this tube do not fall out the bottom but the extent of this tube is the lowest point to which objects within its enclosure may fall. Objects may be passed or thrown into or our of "sequestered space" (new term) through a door or port hole made of primary cloaked matter, but all borders for safety must be primary cloaked matter. Objects which transverse the cloaking thresshold line will remain contiguous unto themselves but will none the less have the the affected portions thereof either cloaked or uncloaked. This is all the detail I can give.