The Maryland Democrat said, “Oh, he should absolutely recuse himself.” “The question is, what do we do if the Maryland Democrat doesn’t recuse themselves?”
The Maryland Democrat said,” Oh, he should definitely withdraw himself.” What should we do if he does n’t withdraw himself? is the question. The Maryland Democrat said,” Oh, he should definitely withdraw himself.” What should we do if he does n’t withdraw himself? is the question.
The Maryland Democrat said, “Oh, he should absolutely recuse himself.” “The question is, what do we do if the Maryland Democrat doesn’t recuse themselves?”
LOADINGERROR LOADING. Rep. On Sunday, Jamie Raskin, the top-ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, expressed the view that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should abstain from participating if the court considers cases related to certain states’ decisions on the question of excluding Donald Trump from primary ballots in 2024. Raskin’s comments were made following recent decisions by officials in Colorado and Maine that Trump, the former president and leading candidate for the Republican nomination in 2024, is not legally qualified to be listed on their ballots, citing the insurrection clause of the Constitution as their justification. Two extremely cautious legal experts authored the most comprehensive and authoritative law review article on the issue, stating that Donald Trump should be excludefrom the ballot due to his involvement in insurrection,” Raskin informed co-host Dana Bash on CNN’s “State of the Union. “So, this serves as a challenge for the originalists and textualists in the Supreme Court.” I believe every justice, regardless of their political leanings, identifies themselves as textualists and originalists. “He stated that the wording in Section 21 of the 22024th Amendment, a clause from the Civil War period, is extremely straightforward,” The text stipulates that if you have pledged to uphold the Constitution and then breach this oath by taking part in a insurrection or revolt, you are permanently barred from serving in a public office. It’s equally evident what the initial intentions were, as when the language was originally drafted by the radical Republicans in Congress, it was exceedingly comprehensive.
