Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsMSFwBF-4SWD5msARwYkdw/join
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
Hey ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America and the Supreme Court may be
0:05
getting prepared to step in to the Donald Trump immunity claim case and also the 14th Amendment
0:13
cases that are keeping him off ballots in some liberal states like Colorado and Maine, at least
0:19
for the time being. Well, now there's some pressure on one Supreme Court Justice
0:24
maybe more. Before we get started, please make sure you like, comment, share, and subscribe
0:30
Those little things really help us out and they help our channel continue to grow
0:35
So, Jamie Raskin was on State of the Union on New Year's Eve. He's a congressman
0:41
a Democrat congressman, hard anti-Trumper, was an impeachment manager, and he's calling on the recusal of Clarence Thomas from the case, but that's not really
0:53
the main issue, right? So, the host, Dana Bash, she says, you know, three of the justices were
0:59
appointed by Trump. Should they recuse themselves? Yes, of course. Let's have those three justices
1:04
recuse themselves and Thomas, in fact, let's just have three liberals decide this. What do you have
1:09
the Supreme Court there for? So, in any case involving a former president, if you appointed
1:14
the justice, they should recuse themselves? That's psychotic. They've already weighed in on tons of
1:18
cases involving President Trump, so it's not going to happen and Thomas isn't going to recuse himself
1:24
as Raskin admits. It's what Raskin says at the end of this video that has people concerned
1:29
because it sounds like he's making a veiled threat. Now, I can't say that for sure. I want to
1:34
know what it sounds like to you, so please let me know in the comments. Before I show you the video
1:38
I want to ask you again to like, comment, share, and subscribe. Those little things really help
1:43
us out. I'm Carmine Sabia for Explain America. We love you guys. God bless you. Take care, everybody
1:49
Now, let's watch this clip. The Constitution changed the Constitution. Three of the sitting
1:54
justices were appointed by Donald Trump, and in addition to that, Justice Clarence Thomas's wife
2:00
Ginny, texted with Mark Meadows about the 2020 election and the lead up to January 6, as you will
2:06
know. Should any of the justices recuse themselves if they take this up? Well, finally, the Supreme
2:13
Court has developed what they're describing as a code of ethics. It's not binding in the sense that
2:20
they're not going to anyone else. They could have gone to, for example, circuit court justices. You
2:25
could have had state Supreme Court justices on a panel, but so they're deciding for themselves
2:31
again, whether they're in violation of their code of ethics. But I think anybody looking at this in
2:37
any kind of dispassionate, reasonable way would say, if your wife was involved in the big lie
2:44
and claiming that Donald Trump had actually won the presidential election and been agitating for
2:49
that and participating in the events leading up to January 6, that you shouldn't be participating
2:55
So he should recuse himself? He should. Oh, he absolutely should recuse himself. The question is, what do we do if he doesn't recuse himself
3:03
How quickly do you think that the Supreme Court will weigh in on this, if they will at all? You
3:09
assume that they will, right? Yeah. I mean, under constitutional federalism, every state is ultimately
3:15
going to control its own ballot access and access to candidates for the ballot. And that is obviously
3:23
difficult when we're talking about electing the president, who is the one official we've got in
3:27
America who's supposed to represent the entire country, represent everybody. And so I think
3:32
that the urgency is for the Supreme Court to act. But I think it's going to be tough for some of
3:39
them if they want to keep Trump on the ballot, if they're falling for the argument that this is
3:44
undemocratic. I mean, is it undemocratic that Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm can't run for
3:50
president because they weren't born in the country? If you think about it, of all the forms
3:54
of disqualification we have, the one that disqualifies people for engaging in insurrection
4:00
is the most democratic, because it's the one where people choose themselves to be disqualified. In
4:06
terms of your age or where you were born, that's not up to you. But Donald Trump is in that
4:12
tiny, tiny number of people who've essentially disqualified themselves. You're a constitutional
4:16
scholar. You're also a politician. What about the argument that this is just going to make him a martyr
#Constitutional Law & Civil Rights
#Campaigns & Elections
#Other


