Jamie Raskin’s Absurd Theory of Forced Judicial Recusal

They say that you can’t build a strong argument on weak foundations. You can certainly build a weak argument on weak foundations, though, and here to exploit that loophole in the aphoristic canon comes one Jamie Raskin, a Democratic representative from Maryland who began his career in Congress by engaging in a failed attempt to challenge Donald Trump’s victory in the election of 2016, and who is now trying to save the republic by toying with the makeup of the Supreme Court.

Duly impressed by the concrete-pouring efforts of his fellow progressive Democrats, Raskin has taken to the pages of today’s New York Times to build the practical case for forcing Justices Thomas and Alito to recuse themselves from any Supreme Court cases that relate to January 6. Hitherto, Americans have had to rely upon devastating emotional arguments in advance of this proposition — arguments such as “Alito’s wife sometimes flies flags” and “Thomas is too close to his spouse”— and Raskin has sensed that if he and his team of provocateurs are going to prevail, they’ll need something sturdier than that. The result is a 2,000-word brief in favor of giving Merrick Garland control of Article III whenever the Democratic Party considers it imperative.

About the Author

Charles C. W. Cooke

Charles C. W. Cooke is a senior editor at National Review and the host of The Charles C. W. Cooke Podcast.

Featured Tags

They say that you can’t build a strong argument on weak foundations. You can certainly build a weak argument on weak foundations, though, and here to exploit that loophole in the aphoristic canon comes one Jamie Raskin, a Democratic representative from Maryland who began his career in Congress by engaging in a failed attempt to challenge Donald Trump’s victory in the election of 2016, and who is now trying to save the republic by toying with the makeup of the Supreme Court.

Duly impressed by the concrete-pouring efforts of his fellow progressive Democrats, Raskin has taken to the pages of today’s New York Times to build the practical case for forcing Justices Thomas and Alito to recuse themselves from any Supreme Court cases that relate to January 6. Hitherto, Americans have had to rely upon devastating emotional arguments in advance of this proposition — arguments such as “Alito’s wife sometimes flies flags” and “Thomas is too close to his spouse”— and Raskin has sensed that if he and his team of provocateurs are going to prevail, they’ll need something sturdier than that. The result is a 2,000-word brief in favor of giving Merrick Garland control of Article III whenever the Democratic Party considers it imperative.