I think this was said with just a hint of sarcasm.
A hint! It’s off the scale!
The morning after a Democratic rout: Clarence Thomas takes out a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal: “Let the Bidding Begin! [signed} Clarence Thomas, future ex-Supreme Court Justice.”
I assume by “Democratic rout” you mean a rout of Democrats, not by Democrats.
By Democrats, so that the Republicans can fill the seat during the lame duck session.
Thomas offers himself up for sale, the NYT headline: In an unusual move, a Justice takes out an ad.
As per the OP, a rout BY Democrats.
Thomas has already shown he’ll do anything for $$$, and violate his every principle for $$$$$$$$$. To suggest that he would let his ego, or his desire to stay on the Court, or anything, overrule his desire for bucks is ridiculous.
Yeah. Thanks. I knew what you meant about rout but stupidly said it backwards.
Dems win, Thomas sells his resignation to a fascist high bidder, and the lame duck Rs name a fascist college student to replace him. Who’ll then issue fascist opinions for 50+ years.
That’s my scenario. Can anyone give me one good reason that wouldn’t happen?
He’s shown the only principle he’s interested in is the kind that accumulates compound interest.
And nobody make me laugh too hard by using words like “shame,” “embarrassment,” “tradition,” “decency” or “principle” in your answer, please. I have a hernia and can’t take too much laughter.
Thats a principle about principal.
Mo’ is bettah and mo’ mo’ is mo’ bettah.
What besides death, retirement or impeachment/conviction can remove a Supreme Court justice from office?
Suppose a justice suffers a brain aneurysm that puts him in a vegetative state. Is the only way to remove him is to go through the impeachment process? Because in that case, I think the Reps would want to fast-track the process while the Dems would have ample opportunities to drag their feet so that the selection of a new justice would happen after they’ve taken the majority.
Except for that unlikely scenario, I think we’re screwed.
What the Dems OUGHT to do is have a bill put up for a vote RIGHT NOW that would forbid such a scenario from taking place.
It wouldn’t pass, of course, unless Republicans up for a seat in November see their NO vote as an additional reason for voters to throw them out of office. Even if it fails, it puts the GOP on record as favoring shameless corruption.
Whoa, that will surely be their undoing!
Nah, though if it gets the Dems an extra seat or two in a close race, all the better.