House Democrats urge Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from Trump Colorado ballot case - eviltoast

The former president has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling in Colorado that he is ineligible to appear on the state primary ballot because of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

A group of House Democrats on Thursday called on conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from a case involving former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on Colorado’s Republican primary ballot.

Trump on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to overturn a Colorado court ruling last month that disqualified him from appearing on the ballot over his conduct leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The former president’s appeal came after the state’s Republican Party filed its own appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision. The state court put its ruling on hold to allow for appeals, meaning Trump could remain on the ballot pending U.S. Supreme Court action.

A group of House Democrats, led by Rep. Hank Johnson, of Georgia, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee’s courts subcommittee, demanded that Thomas recuse himself from the case in a letter dated Thursday.

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    yes, there are now detailed records coming out from his conservative connections, many of which have tangential ties to his decisions.

    youre not going to find a sticky note or email stating the quid pro quo, but there is little doubt this piece of human garbage has no problem taking money and pushing the conservative agenda no matter what.

    mob bosses dont order people to be killed. they lament the existence of those people, and it happens.

    • No1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I think what the other user is asking is, have any of his rooms gone differently than you’d expect from someone with his constitutional philosophy. Saying, “He ruled in favor of a friend,” is significantly different than, “He ruled in favor of a friend with a ruling that’s very out of the norm for how he typically rules.”