House Democrat raises alarm with haunting question about Clarence Thomas not complying with recusal demand

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) raised eyebrows on Sunday for questioning what should happen to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas if he doesn't recuse himself from a possible case involving Donald Trump.

Last month, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is constitutionally disqualified for the presidency, prompting Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) to make the same judgment. Trump has not yet appealed to the Supreme Court to review Colorado's decision, though an appeal could come as early as Tuesday.

But Democrats are already demanding that Thomas recuse himself from the potential forthcoming case. They argue the actions of Thomas' wife, and her beliefs about the 2020 election, render Thomas unable to judge fairly.

In fact, according to Raskin, the question is not whether Thomas should recuse, but what to do with Thomas if he doesn't recuse.

"I think anybody looking at this in any kind of dispassionate, reasonable way would say, 'If your wife was involved in the 'big lie' and claiming that Donald Trump had actually won the presidential election and had been agitating for that and participating in the events leading up to Jan. 6, that you shouldn't be participating in—," Raskin said Sunday on CNN.

When anchor Dana Bash interrupted Raskin to ask if that means he believes Thomas should refuse himself, Raskin confirmed, "Oh, he absolutely should recuse himself."

"The question is: What do we do if he doesn't recuse himself?" the Democrat added.

Raskin's question was interpreted as a veiled threat against Thomas warning him of consequences if he doesn't comply with Democrats' demand for his recusal.

The comments, moreover, were interpreted as a foreshadowing of Democrats' reaction if the Supreme Court takes up Trump's appeal and rules that he is constitutionally eligible for the presidency: that Democrats will try to de-legitimize the Supreme Court by claiming that allowing Trump on ballots is a threat to American democracy.

To be clear: there is zero evidence that Thomas is compromised, that he would have a conflict of interest in the forthcoming case, or that his wife's political opinions have any bearing on his decisions as a justice.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!