Dick Durbin says calls to remove Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas are ‘unrealistic’

Sen. Dick Durbin, in an interview on Sunday, said calls from some Democratic lawmakers to remove Associate Justice Clarence Thomas were unrealistic.

During an interview on “Fox News Sunday”, the Illinois Democrat who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee told anchor Mike Emanuel that the lawyer should “use good judgment” and recuse himself from cases involving the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.

But he said the removal of Thomas, who has sat on the bench since 1991, is highly unlikely.

“I don’t think that’s realistic,” Durbin said. “I can tell you that there is, in my mind, a clear conflict of interest with respect to Judge Thomas and matters relating to the January 6 insurrection.”

He continued, “His wife is actively involved politically. Going so far as to give direct advice to the president’s chief of staff during this crisis. I think Judge Thomas should recuse himself from any decision relating to the January 6 episode. Already it was the only vote earlier on a matter related to this issue.I think that is a mistake.

In January, Thomas was the lone dissenting judge when the court ruled that Trump could not prevent the release of documents requested by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot.

For months, Thomas has been called upon to resign or recuse himself from matters related to the Capitol riot due to the efforts of his wife Ginni, who had documented conversations with allies of former President Donald Trump to push for overturning President Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory. But Durbin threw cold water on a congressional impeachment of the judge.

“As to whether he’s going to be impeached, that’s not realistic. But he has to exercise good judgment,” the lawmaker said.

Thomas also drew a flurry of criticism from many Democratic lawmakers as part of the conservative bloc that last month overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 court decision that legalized abortion in the United States and established a constitutional right to procedure.

Comments are closed.