No one can obliterate someone’s argument with a simple question quite like Clarence Thomas.
In the ongoing hearings regarding the unconstitutional — and frankly, illegal — move many states are taking to remove former President Donald Trump’s name from their ballots entirely, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas responded to Colorado attorney Jason Murray’s arguments with a simple question, but that simple question left Murray stumped.
In a video shared on social media by the Conservative Brief with audio from Trump’s 14th Amendment hearing, Murray was heard arguing that there are legal precedents for states to remove national candidates from the ballot.
Thomas kept pressing him, asking him for examples of when this had been done in the past.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas EVICERATES Colorado attorney Jason Murray during Donald Trump’s 14th Amendment hearing at SCOTUS.
Thomas – “What are the examples?”
Murray – Provides no examples.
Thomas – “Do you have any examples of this?”
Murray – Still no examples. pic.twitter.com/fkiRvkKnvb
— Conservative Brief (@ConservBrief) February 8, 2024
Murray gave several examples of states doing this on a state level, but none regarding the removal of a presidential candidate from the ballot, despite Thomas’ repeated requests for such examples.
Thomas began by saying that, in the period after the Civil War, considering the “plethora” of Confederate politicians and supporters still around, “that would suggest there would at least be a few examples of national candidates being disqualified.”
Murray responded by bringing up “national candidates who were disqualified by Congress refusing to seat them,” but still nothing like what’s currently happening with Trump in states like Colorado.
Are you a fan of Clarence Thomas?
After going back and forth and getting nowhere, Thomas again asked Murray point-blank, “What are the examples?”
And Murray, despite expending many, many words to evade the question, could not provide a single one.
The closest Murray could come was to say that “states excluded many candidates for state office” (a factoid beaten into the ground at this point), and nothing else.
Of course, states can disqualify state candidates, but Murray was trying to argue that states have the ability to disqualify national candidates. The fact that he struggled to cite even one instance of this happening is incredibly telling.
These blue states, as we’ve seen time after time, care little for the actual rule of law and legal precedents.
Instead, all the evidence seems to indicate they are motivated more by their blind hatred of Donald Trump, and their irrational fear of another Trump presidency.
While we can’t expect politics and political decisions to be untouched by personal biases or beliefs, to conduct an entire case solely based on hatred of a candidate is ignoring the law in favor of one’s own personal judgement.
Many conservatives would surely love to kick Joe Biden off the ballot, but almost none have seriously suggested that course of action, because it’s so obviously illegal.
But the leaders of these blue states see no issue with that, which shows how deranged the left has become when it comes to Trump.
For now, it seems that the Supreme Court is one of the few places where Trump Derangement Syndrome won’t get a free pass.
And in this instance, we have Clarence Thomas to thank for that yet again.