Democrats Move To Cripple The Supreme Court

Democrats want to destroy the Supreme Court.

In a recent op-ed for The New York Times, Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin delved into the contentious issue of potential recusals of Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in cases concerning the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. Raskin outlined the prevailing assumption that little can be done about such recusals due to the Supreme Court’s perceived lack of a binding ethics code or formal recusal process beyond justices’ individual discretion.

However, Raskin proposed a novel approach to this dilemma, emphasizing the role of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in potentially compelling recusals. He argued that while Alito and Thomas could opt to recuse themselves voluntarily, relying solely on their goodwill might overlook a more potent avenue for action.

Raskin highlighted the DOJ’s considerable influence, suggesting that it could petition the other seven justices to mandate the recusal of Alito and Thomas. He pointed out the DOJ’s stakeholders, including the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, a designated U.S. special counsel, and the solicitor general, all of whom have been involved in the ongoing criminal proceedings related to the Capitol attack and have opposed former President Trump’s legal arguments.

Recent controversies have intensified calls for the recusal of Alito and Thomas, with scrutiny directed at flags reportedly flown at Alito’s residences associated with the “Stop the Steal” movement and allegations regarding Thomas’s spouse’s involvement in the same effort. Raskin underscored the legal grounds for such a motion, citing constitutional provisions, particularly the due process clause, and federal statutes mandating judicial disqualification in cases of questionable impartiality.

Despite Raskin’s assertions, the DOJ declined to comment on the matter, leaving the prospect of forced recusals uncertain. Nonetheless, his argument underscores the potential for institutional mechanisms to address perceived conflicts of interest within the judiciary, offering a nuanced perspective on an issue with far-reaching implications for the rule of law and public trust in the judicial system.