U.S. Supreme Court Judge "obsessed with porn"

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
U.S. Supreme Court Judge "obsessed with porn"

This is getting out of hand. When a supreme court judge has an addiction to porn, he should be suspended from his duties and given treatment.


"I have nothing to be afraid of," she said, adding that she hopes the attention stokes interest in her manuscript.

To McEwen, Hill's allegations that Thomas had pressed her for dates and made lurid sexual references rang familiar.

"He was always actively watching the women he worked with to see if they could be potential partners," McEwen said matter-of-factly. "It was a hobby of his."



And Clarence Thomas' wife called up Anita Hill and asked her to apologize. This is stuff fiction writers dream of. Nothing is going to remove that man from the bench. McEwen will be torn apart by the media.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Stargazer wrote:

 Nothing is going to remove that man from the bench.


True to a point... short of murder, treason or some other heinous crime a Supreme Court justice cannot be removed from office and there's a reason the founding fathers made it that way: it removes them from influence from political leverage. So once a Supreme Court Justice candidate gets selected, vetted and confirmed by congress they are in for life... It's the closest thing we have to royalty in our Federal political system. As such they can now concentrate on their only job: deciding if laws or bills, lower court decisions or government policy is constitutionally legal. They no longer have to worry about getting elected, being popular with the people, pissing people off (including people who think they owe them favors from by gone days) or being fucked with or threatened politically. While not perfect it's kind of smart if you think about it. The only president who chopped through this safeguard was none other than Abraham Lincoln during our civil war; in a nut shell he had to violate the constitution in order to save it. Perhaps an interesting read for another time.

Not that I approve of Clarence Thomas but yeah, I doubt talking dirty to your employees or being "addicted to porn" is going get a SCJ booted or suspended; especially if this happened before they were appointed and there's no evidence of it going on now.

Question: do you have similar positions (in for life like a SCJ) in your FN governing structures?



Unless it's interfering with his job, who cares? The sexual harassment, on the other hand, if that's kept going on, it's a whole other issue. Not that there's much chance of him being thrown off the bench anyway.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Is this thread about the definition of obsenity vis-a-vis the First Amendment (and whether Clarence Thomas has broken any state laws under that definition), or is it about sexual harassment?  Or is it about the publication of a salient, 'tell all' confessional, by a self-identified Democrat (upon retirement from public service), timed to remind crucial, female swing voters of Republican sleaze-- just before U.S. mid-term elections?