Congressman Jamie Raskin writes in a New York Times op-ed that Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas can be forced to recuse themselves from cases involving Jan. 6 and Trump.

A Constitutional expert, Raskin makes clear that the Constitution’s Due Process clause can be invoked to require Alito and Thomas recuse themselves after their spouses hung insurrectionist flags and collaborated with insurrectionists.

But it will only happen if Attorney General Merrick Garland initiates the process.

SIGN THE PETITION TO MERRICK GARLAND:

Time is running out before Court decisions related to January 6 are announced in June. Formally insist that the 7 other Supreme Court justices require that Justices Alito and Thomas recuse themselves from cases involving January 6 and Trump.

In the op-ed, Raskin writes:

"The Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland can invoke two powerful textual authorities for this motion: the Constitution of the United States, specifically the due process clause, and the federal statute mandating judicial disqualification for questionable impartiality, 28 U.S.C. Section 455. The Constitution has come into play in several recent Supreme Court decisions striking down rulings by stubborn judges in lower courts whose political impartiality has been reasonably questioned but who threw caution to the wind to hear a case anyway...

"The 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.

"When the arguments are properly before the court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Sonia Sotomayor will have both a constitutional obligation and a statutory obligation to enforce recusal standards."