June 22, 2024

INSIDER: SCOTUS won’t be bullied by Dems, now Raskin wants Biden’s DOJ to get involved

Democrat efforts to pressure the recusal of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito from the all-important ruling of presidential immunity have failed, and now one leftist lawmaker is wanting to get the Justice Department involved.
The fake controversy over the George W. Bush appointee’s flags has served as a pretext for the occasion to intervene with the 2024 election by eradicating him from maybe probably the most consequential ruling within the nation’s historical past, one that might perpetually alter the way forward for America.
After Alito instructed Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) to sit on it and rotate, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a very malicious member of Congress, threatened to put the matter within the palms of Attorney General Merrick Garland to pressure not solely Alito’s recusal but in addition that of conservative Justice Clarence Thomas.
In an op-ed for the New York Times, the impeachment and J6 committee veteran threatened that Joe Biden’s politicized DOJ might quickly get involved to save its present trials of the presumptive GOP nominee.

A visitor essay from Representative @jamie_raskin: How to pressure Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves within the Jan. 6 circumstances.
Read: https://t.co/6wTPHVUyJX
— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) May 29, 2024

“Of course, Justices Alito and Thomas could choose to recuse themselves — wouldn’t that be nice? But begging them to do the right thing misses a far more effective course of action,” wrote Raskin, a fanatical former left-wing tutorial who introduced his campus radicalism to the halls of Congress.
The congressman insisted that Garland can petition the opposite seven justices to demand Alito and Thomas’ recusal, citing current statutes and the U.S. Constitution, a doc that Democrats have as a lot regard for as bathroom paper when it doesn’t swimsuit their political agenda.
“This recusal statute, if triggered, is not a friendly suggestion. It is Congress’s command, binding on the justices, just as the due process clause is. The Supreme Court cannot disregard this law just because it directly affects one or two of its justices. Ignoring it would trespass on the constitutional separation of powers because the justices would essentially be saying that they have the power to override a congressional command,” Raskin wrote.
“But even if no member of the court raises the issue of recusal, the urgent need to deal with it persists. Once it is raised, the court would almost surely have to find that the due process clause and Section 455 compel Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves. To arrive at that substantive conclusion, the justices need only read their court’s own recusal decisions,” he acknowledged.
On Thursday, Chief Justice Roberts rejected Durbin and Whitehouse’s demand for an in-person assembly with him in regards to the phony firestorm over Alito’s flags.
“I must respectfully decline your request for a meeting.” Roberts wrote. “As noted in my letter to Chairman Durbin last April, apart from ceremonial events, only on rare occasions in our Nation’s history has a sitting Chief Justice met with legislators, even in a public setting (such as a Committee hearing) with members of both major political parties present.”
“Separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence counsel against such appearances. Moreover, the format proposed – a meeting with only members of one party who have expressed an interest in matters currently pending before the Court – simply underscores that participating in such a meeting would be inadvisable,” the chief justice stated, telling the Democrat senators to go pound sand.
To say that leftists aren’t taking it effectively would be an enormous understatement.

Chairman @DickDurbin?
If John Roberts won’t meet voluntarily, SUBPOENA HIM
If he skirts the subpoena ARREST HIM#TheSupremeCourtIsIllegitimate pic.twitter.com/DKohYrhFCR
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) May 30, 2024

“But the Constitution and Congress’s recusal statute provide the objective framework of analysis and remedy for cases of judicial bias that are apparent to the world, even if they may be invisible to the judges involved. This is not really optional for the justices,” Raskin concluded his op-ed. “I look forward to seeing seven members of the court act to defend the reputation and integrity of the institution.”

Source link