Impeaching Clarence Thomas is a great idea. Don't do it.


Impeaching Justice Clarence Thomas would be a waste of time and effort by Democrats. They might try anyway.
Progressives in the House of Representatives, lead by Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), are talking up impeachment in the wake of revelations that Thomas' wife, Ginni, sent text messages to Donald Trump's chief of staff around the time of the Jan. 6 insurrection, urging the then-president to "stand firm" in efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The Supreme Court justice later opposed his colleagues' decision to order the release of documents to the House committee investigating the insurrection.
Progressives say that's a conflict of interest for Thomas — one of many involving his wife.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
"Clarence Thomas should resign," Ocasio-Cortez wrote Tuesday morning on Twitter. "If not, his failure to disclose income from right-wing organizations, recuse himself from matters involving his wife, and his vote to block the Jan. 6 commission from key information must be investigated and could serve as grounds for impeachment."
It's a fine idea. But it won't work.
The main problem is math. There weren't enough Democratic votes in the Senate to convict Donald Trump during his two impeachments, and there aren't enough votes now. Even if a few Republicans agreed that Thomas behaved badly — a big if — they're still likely to circle the wagons for the justice and his wife. Most Republicans wouldn't vote to convict Trump even after he unleashed an insurrection that threatened their own safety. Are they really going to take down Thomas for getting fuzzy on conflict-of-interest rules? Please.
That leads to the political problem. As noted, since winning the House majority in 2018, Democrats impeached Trump twice. Doing the same to Thomas would make three major impeachments by the House in just four years — and with nothing at all to show for it except an abundance of outrage on all sides. Dems are probably going to lose their majority in November, but it's going to hurt more if it looks to voters like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her caucus have spent a lot more time trying to chase conservatives out of Washington than, say, working to bring down inflation.
There are no real upsides.
It's understandable why Dems would talk about impeaching Thomas. At this point, they're desperate for somebody — anybody — to be held accountable for Trump's efforts to overturn the election. The Trump impeachment failed. Members of the Jan. 6 committee have started griping at Attorney General Merrick Garland to "do your job" because he hasn't brought criminal cases against uncooperative witnesses. Trump and his cronies are, as ever, impervious to punishment for wrongdoing. It's outrageous.
Taking aim at Thomas, though, is a dumb thing to do if failure is inevitable. And it is.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Joel Mathis is a writer with 30 years of newspaper and online journalism experience. His work also regularly appears in National Geographic and The Kansas City Star. His awards include best online commentary at the Online News Association and (twice) at the City and Regional Magazine Association.
-
Here We Are: Stephen Sondheim's 'utterly absorbing' final musical
The Week Recommends The musical theatre legend's last work is 'witty, wry and suddenly wise'
-
The Trial: 'sharp' legal drama with a 'clever' script
The Week Recommends Channel 5's one-off show imagines a near future where parents face trial for their children's crimes
-
Riefenstahl: a 'gripping and incrementally nauseating' documentary
The Week Recommends Andres Veiel's nuanced film examines whether the controversial film director was complicit in Nazi war crimes
-
Israel-US 'rift': is Trump losing patience with Netanyahu?
Today's Big Question US president called for an end to Gaza war and negotiated directly with Hamas to return American hostage, amid rumours of strained relations
-
What happens if tensions between India and Pakistan boil over?
TODAY'S BIG QUESTION As the two nuclear-armed neighbors rattle their sabers in the wake of a terrorist attack on the contested Kashmir region, experts worry that the worst might be yet to come
-
Why Russia removed the Taliban's terrorist designation
The Explainer Russia had designated the Taliban as a terrorist group over 20 years ago
-
Inside the Israel-Turkey geopolitical dance across Syria
THE EXPLAINER As Syria struggles in the wake of the Assad regime's collapse, its neighbors are carefully coordinating to avoid potential military confrontations
-
'Like a sound from hell': Serbia and sonic weapons
The Explainer Half a million people sign petition alleging Serbian police used an illegal 'sound cannon' to disrupt anti-government protests
-
The arrest of the Philippines' former president leaves the country's drug war in disarray
In the Spotlight Rodrigo Duterte was arrested by the ICC earlier this month
-
Ukrainian election: who could replace Zelenskyy?
The Explainer Donald Trump's 'dictator' jibe raises pressure on Ukraine to the polls while the country is under martial law
-
Why Serbian protesters set off smoke bombs in parliament
THE EXPLAINER Ongoing anti-corruption protests erupted into full view this week as Serbian protesters threw the country's legislature into chaos