Supreme Court Stunner - Justice Clarence Thomas Put On Notice

Hey ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America and the Supreme Court may be

getting prepared to step in to the Donald Trump immunity claim case and also the 14th Amendment

cases that are keeping him off ballots in some liberal states like Colorado and Maine, at least

for the time being. Well, now there's some pressure on one Supreme Court Justice

maybe more. Before we get started, please make sure you like, comment, share, and subscribe

Those little things really help us out and they help our channel continue to grow

So, Jamie Raskin was on State of the Union on New Year's Eve. He's a congressman

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

the main issue, right? So, the host, Dana Bash, she says, you know, three of the justices were

appointed by Trump. Should they recuse themselves? Yes, of course. Let's have those three justices

recuse themselves and Thomas, in fact, let's just have three liberals decide this. What do you have

the Supreme Court there for? So, in any case involving a former president, if you appointed

the justice, they should recuse themselves? That's psychotic. They've already weighed in on tons of

cases involving President Trump, so it's not going to happen and Thomas isn't going to recuse himself

as Raskin admits. It's what Raskin says at the end of this video that has people concerned

because it sounds like he's making a veiled threat. Now, I can't say that for sure. I want to

know what it sounds like to you, so please let me know in the comments. Before I show you the video

I want to ask you again to like, comment, share, and subscribe. Those little things really help

us out. I'm Carmine Sabia for Explain America. We love you guys. God bless you. Take care, everybody

Now, let's watch this clip. The Constitution changed the Constitution. Three of the sitting

justices were appointed by Donald Trump, and in addition to that, Justice Clarence Thomas's wife

Ginny, texted with Mark Meadows about the 2020 election and the lead up to January 6, as you will

know. Should any of the justices recuse themselves if they take this up? Well, 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 so they're deciding for themselves

again, whether they're in violation of their code of ethics. But 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 been agitating for

that and participating in the events leading up to January 6, that you shouldn't be participating

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

How quickly do you think that the Supreme Court will weigh in on this, if they will at all? You

assume that they will, right? Yeah. I mean, under constitutional federalism, every state is ultimately

going to control its own ballot access and access to candidates for the ballot. And that is obviously

difficult when we're talking about electing the president, who is the one official we've got in

America who's supposed to represent the entire country, represent everybody. And so I think

that the urgency is for the Supreme Court to act. But I think it's going to be tough for some of

them if they want to keep Trump on the ballot, if they're falling for the argument that this is

undemocratic. I mean, is it undemocratic that Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm can't run for

president because they weren't born in the country? If you think about it, of all the forms

of disqualification we have, the one that disqualifies people for engaging in insurrection

is the most democratic, because it's the one where people choose themselves to be disqualified. In

terms of your age or where you were born, that's not up to you. But Donald Trump is in that

tiny, tiny number of people who've essentially disqualified themselves. You're a constitutional

scholar. You're also a politician. What about the argument that this is just going to make him a martyr