WATCH: Raskin's Disturbing Defense of Removing Trump From Ballot Includes Chilling Words About SCOTUS

AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough

CNN had Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) in on Sunday to talk about the efforts by Democrats to boot former President Donald Trump from the ballot using the 14th Amendment. 


Raskin made some comments that a lot of people are talking about. 

The first part was what he said about the disqualification process. He had the temerity to claim that what they were trying to do against Trump was the most "democratic" form of disqualification. This takes some kind of gall to attempt this level of spin;

Wow, what horse hockey. 

"Is it undemocratic that Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm can't run for president because they weren't born in the country?" he ridiculously said. "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." He then claims that Trump disqualified himself. 

First, the Constitution says you can't run if you aren't a citizen of the U.S. That's not questionable. But what does that have to do with the fact that you're trying to take away the rights of your political opponent and the rights of the millions who would vote for him (and defeat your weak, unpopular candidate)? What a laugh how they claim that they want to "protect democracy," yet they push for this. 


Second, Sec. 5 of the 14th Amendment says Congress shall have the power to enforce the provisions, not every state making up their own minds and having all kinds of political decisions. I wrote about that in talking about the dissent of Colorado Supreme Court Justice Carlos Samour, in addition to all the other reasons the 14th Amendment doesn't apply, including that there was no insurrection and he wasn't charged under the applicable federal statute, 18 U.S.C § 2383.

Dissent in Colorado Case on Trump Lays Out Roadmap for SCOTUS to Overturn Decision

That was bad enough. But then Raskin went into an attack on the Supreme Court and specifically Justice Clarence Thomas, claiming he should "absolutely recuse himself" because of his wife being "involved."

"The question is, what do we do if he doesn't?" Raskin said. 

There's a lot to unpack there. First, that's more horse hockey when it comes to Ginni Thomas. There's no evidence at all that she was involved with the riot, which wasn't an insurrection. Second, what was her crime? She believed the election was unfair and had problems, and pushed for people to look into whether it was fair. So? 


Perhaps Raskin needs a reminder of what this guy did. This was him objecting to Trump in 2017. Why didn't Dana Bash ask him about this? 

Bottom line? Democrats did all kinds of things to object and try to stop Trump from taking office, but they failed. Yet now Ginni Thomas is wrong? Oh, please. They demonize "election denialism" but were some of the biggest proponents of it for years. 

But what is Raskin suggesting there at the end, "The question is, what do we do if he doesn't?" 

SCOTUS is the final authority. Is he suggesting that they would try to undercut the authority of the Supreme Court if they don't like their decision on the matter? What does he think is the alternative here? The House GOP asked if he was threatening democracy with these remarks. 

Many viewed Raskin's remarks as a concerning threat to Justice Thomas.


They want to control everything, and if they can't manipulate the Supreme Court, they want to smear it to undermine its role in society and/or assail the Justices they think they can't control. If the Court decides against them on this matter, they will then say the Court is compromised and you can't trust their decisions. Talk about "threats to democracy." 



Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos