A more serious look at the issue... Although I do find the OP of an old White man lecturing an old black man about civil rights to be quite interesting.
The idea is that people in power should be more vulnerable to criticism. That's how we hold government and elites accountable. On the other hand, I wonder if changing the laws would improve public discourse, by forcing the media and the public at large to focus on policy and official activities, rather than the personal lives of politicians that is largely irrelevant to governance.
Like Kavanaugh Republicans were going to approve Thomas's appointment no matter what they found in his background.
\ Maybe we need a more strict version, especially in the time of trump and birtherism. Still, this does open up a huge problem with using lawsuits to essentially silence someone in the press who is trying to promote an opinion which could be legitimate and be malicious. For instance let us say Sean Hannity wanted to say something negative about Hillary Clinton's health which may not be true. For instance he says she is unhealthy and unfit for the presidency because she had pneumonia and had her fall. One could say that was a lie because he has never examined her nor is a doctor who could offer a valid diagnosis. His ideas are clearly opinion, wrong, and given his attitude spread with malice. They effect public opinion of Hillary and could be said to have damaged her. Sure, I don't like the opinion because it is wrong and he has no idea about her health, but he has a right to speak that opinion without having to defend himself against lawsuits from her and the dems trying to silence him. With the reality that litigation can overwhelm a person, and some people may not have paid lawyers to defend them you could easily destroy anyone with a negative opinion of you. lety us think of clarence's motivation here. Years ago people brought up some sexual harassment claims about him that some might consider a lie. They certainly were not proven in a court of law with enough evidence to make them most probably right, which is the standard for a civil case. So just for bringing it up he can destroy any woman who makes the claim because she made things hard for him? That is what he wants, along with Weinstein, kavenaugh, trump, and probably people on the left like the Clintons, Obama, and Pelosi. Imagine if Obama could go out and destroy all the birthers who blatantly lied about him? I cannot agree with his opinion in this case, but perhaps we could move the bar a bit or expect more from some news organizations.
Funny you should say that, because Behind the Bastards has just started a 4-part series on Thomas. And his first career choice was to be a priest. No shit. Another interesting little tidbit I learned from the episode was this: (Link takes you to a New Yorker article that recounts that.)
Reminds me of that scene in "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka" with the Black Revolutionary who's spouting all this radical anti-white hate, then his white wife, and white blonde kids come out.
I feel that day where unaccountability will be the norm for republicans is near. Those who cheer its coming will soon regret it.
The House passed a bill to put an 18 year term limit on SCOTUS. That would force Thomas into retirement if it passes the Senate.
That it would force a Republican appointee into retirement when the Senate and White House are controlled by Dems, is exactly why it won't pass.
It's not just/exactly that. New justice is placed every odd numbered year, longest serving justice assumes "senior status (and if there's an early departure the most recent "Senior" Justice fills in until the next odd year. This is ideal since it establishes 2 appointments in each presidential term. And eventually you get to no more than 18 years. It won't pass this year but say it did, next summer Thomas (31 years more or less by then) must be replaced. in '25 it's Roberts (about 20 at that point) - I honestly thought Alito had been there longer in '27 Alito a little over 21 years) in '29 Sotomayor (20) in '31 Kagan (21) in '33 Gorsuch (16 - this is why describing it as 18 years isn't quite precise) in '35 Kav (17) in '37 ACB (17) in '39 KBJ (17) in '41 whoever replaced Thomas (18) And it should be 18 thereafter
Oh, I'm quite sure that you'll have no objections to anything they recount about what Clarence Thomas has done.
