Justice Thomas should 'absolutely' recuse himself from Trump ballot access decision: Dem lawmaker
Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin argued that Justice Clarence Thomas should recuse himself if the case of Donald Trump’s ballot access reaches the Supreme Court.
Justice Clarence Thomas "absolutely should recuse himself" from deciding on whether Donald Trump should be on primary ballots, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., argued on Sunday.
Over the past few weeks, the former president’s name was removed from both the Colorado and Maine primary ballots for allegedly violating the 14th Amendment by engaging in "insurrection." Legal experts have noted that Trump had never been tried or convicted on charges of "insurrection" and suggested that the Supreme Court may intervene.
However, Raskin claimed that Thomas is not qualified to decide the case because of his wife’s alleged involvement in questioning the 2020 election.
"I think anybody looking at this in any kind of dispassionate, reasonable way would say if your wife was involved in the big lie in claiming that Donald Trump had actually won the presidential election and been agitating for that and participating in the events leading up to Jan. 6 that you shouldn’t be participating," Raskin said on CNN’s "State of the Union."
DEMOCRATS AND POLITICAL EXPERTS WARN BARRING TRUMP FROM BALLOTS COULD 'BACKFIRE'
He added, "He absolutely should recuse himself. The question is: what do we do if he doesn’t recuse himself?"
It was reported that Thomas’ wife Ginni Thomas sent text messages to the then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and encouraged him to try and keep Trump in office after the 2020 presidential election. Another report in 2022 claimed that she asked Arizona lawmakers to "take action" in ensuring "a clean slate of electors is chosen."
Multiple Democrats have since called for Thomas to resign or recuse himself from decisions related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, questioning the ethics of the Supreme Court itself.
Raskin also referenced the Supreme Court’s new "Code of Conduct," though he criticized a lack of independent oversight.
"Finally, the Supreme Court has developed what they’re describing as a code of ethics. It’s not binding in the sense that they’re not going to anyone else. They could have gone to, for example, circuit court justices. You could have had state Supreme Court justices on a panel, but they’re deciding for themselves again whether they are in violation of their code of ethics," Raskin said.
Trump’s name was reinstated to the Colorado ballot after Colorado GOP officials filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. The high court has yet to announce whether it will hear the case.
What's Your Reaction?
