Isn't something like this impeachable?

I mean, isn't it pretty much a public sneer at his oath of office and basic duties as a Supreme Court Justice? From Reticent Justice Opens Up to a Group of Students by Adam Liptak New York Times 04/13/09:

The event, on March 31, was devoted to the Bill of Rights, but Justice Thomas did not embrace the document, and he proposed a couple of alternatives.

"Today there is much focus on our rights," Justice Thomas said. "Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights."

"I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?”

He gave examples: “It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They’re owed air-conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions.”

Approving Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court was one major milestone in the Congressional Democrats - and specifically the Senate Democrats - being unwilling to fight for the most obviously necessary goals. Even before the sexual harassment issue surfaced, it was painfully obvious that Thomas didn't have the qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice. And his answers to the Judiciary Committee were painfully obviously dissimulating.

This is something to remember when we think about what passes for "moderates" in the Beltway Village image of the Republican Party today. Thomas is one of the worst rightwing ideologues ever put on the Supreme Court. And it was that great "moderate" Old Many Bush who nominated him. And it was the "moderate" John Danforth who was his chief sponsor in the Senate.

Tags: establishment press, bush doctrine