Clarence Thomas should be impeached more on charges of perjury for repeatedly lying in his annual financial disclosure statements and less for lying in his 1991 confirmation hearing about his history of sexual harassment.

Although federal judges are appointed for life, like all civil officers of the United States, they can be removed, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, "on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Since 1988, three federal judges have been impeached and removed on charges involving perjury. The last judge to be impeached was G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of the Eastern District of Louisiana, who was convicted by the Senate and ejected from office in December 2010 for accepting bribes and, among other derelictions, signing false financial declarations under penalty of perjury.

Thomas, if targeted, would become just the second Supreme Court Justice to be impeached. In 1804, the House charged Associate Justice Samuel Chase with eight articles of impeachment for engaging in arbitrary and oppressive conduct and expressing political bias while serving as a trial judge in certain Sedition Act cases during an era when Supreme Court justices also conducted trials.

The time to impeach Justice Thomas is overdue because he confirms the need whenever he moves his lip (and I always read them well).

Alarmingly, Justice Clarence Thomas is married to disturbing conflicts of interest, especially the ones his spouse delivers to his door on a daily basis.

Ginni Thomas actively supported Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the election by texting his then-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows conspiracy theories and legal strategies to invalidate the election results and she even attended the January 6 rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol. Further, she served as a board member on a conservative political group that helped lead the "Stop the Steal" movement and thereafter signed a letter to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy calling on him to punish any Republicans who cooperates with the House Select Committee investigating the insurrection.

Despite glaring conflicts of interest, Justice Thomas has not recused himself from Supreme Court cases involving the January 6 insurrection or the 2020 election. He was the lone vote to block the House Select Committee from getting January 6 documents from Donald Trump and thereby created a clear appearance of bias and a serious conflict of interest.

Such actions erode public trust in the integrity of the Supreme Court's decision-making process but instead of recognizing the fact that if change is not forthcoming the legitimacy of the court will be irreperably compromised, Justice Roberts had chosen to recognize assholes.

Opinions are indeed like assholes, everybody has one.

Moreover, and this medical opinion will drive the point home; "You have to know yourself, be honest about yourself, and rely on people around you to tell you when you're being an asshole. And when they are kind enough to tell you, listen."

We all know where such commentary applies because the difference between a National, Constitutional Authority and an asshole has evidently evaded the awareness of some of the Justices on the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court justices are subject to a legal statute that requires all federal judges to recuse themselves from any judicial proceedings in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. In addition, a judge must recuse when they know that their spouse has "any interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding." It is absurdly up to the Supreme Court justice to decide when this statute applies and enforce it for themselves, but since Thomas lacks the integrity or the will to be governed by the rule of law he should be impeached for rather obvious reasons -the need to restore the legitimacy of the Supreme Court being the most urgent.

Today, we have reached the point where the predictable subjectivity of certain Supreme Court Justices routinely hijacks the ability to be reasonable and impartial and those who fail to fulfill the mandate of their judicial oaths impeach the capacity to judge.

Conflict and division of opinion may divide but the rule of law must unite, and that is the bottom line.

Unfortunately, Chief Justice John Roberts disagrees.

In an appearance in Colorado Springs, Chief Justice John Roberts called it a "mistake" to question the Supreme Court's legitimacy based on its decisions and he said, "I don't understand the connection between the opinions people disagree with and the legitimacy"

The misunderstanding is not excusable because legitimacy does not come from outcomes, it comes from process.

The Roberts Court has been captured by right-wing special interests and that is a direct violation of the duty that compels an oath taker to faithfully perform his or her mandated obligation in a manner that is not capricious.

Justice is not subject to compromise. The courts are supposed to defend our rights, not take them away.

The Roberts Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act (twice), green-lit partisan gerrymandering, and flooded elections with dark money to facilitate the process of restricting civil rights and suppressing the vote.

The time to impeach those who use their judicial role for political purposes is now.

Next: We need public loyalty to public duty.