This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, one of the extremist Democrats who conducted two failed impeach-and-remove campaigns against President Trump, is now being called out for suggesting a threat to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Raskin wants Thomas off of any panel making a decision on any of the cases involving Trump that might come before the Supreme Court.

Obviously, his concern is that Thomas, as one of the more conservative justices, would oppose the radicalism that is being proposed by those who have insisted on removing Trump from various leftist state ballots, for example.

Raskin's claim is that Thomas would be influenced in his decision-making by his wife, who is a known conservative.

During an interview, Raskin said, "He absolutely should recuse himself. The question is: what do we do if he doesn't recuse himself?"

The concern expressed by constitutional expert Jonathan Turley followed: "The reference to some response from Congress or the public was left unexplained. In the past, Democrats have been criticized for fueling the attacks or targeting conservative justices.

"In fairness to Raskin, I do not believe that he is an advocate for violence. He could be referring to the public voting against Trump. I wish, however, that his fealty to the Constitution would extend to opposing this pernicious and dangerous theory. Other leading Democrats in Congress have done so.

"Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer was widely criticized (including by Chief Justice John Roberts) when he went in front of the Supreme Court to publicly declare 'I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.'

"There is nothing Congress can do to force Thomas off the appeal. The concern is that Raskin is encouraging new targeting of justices at their homes by protesters," Turley explained.

His concern was that Raskin, "said that there may have to be action taken if Justice Clarence Thomas does not recuse himself from pending appeals over the disqualification of Donald Trump from the Colorado and Maine ballots. Not only is there a weak basis for demanding such recusal, the suggestion of some type of response or retaliation raises ongoing concerns over efforts to influence or intimidate justices."

Turley pointed out that under Raskin's agenda, "Thomas would have to recuse himself from any election or Trump-related case because of his wife’s advocacy. Justices on both the left and right have long applied a far more narrow view of recusal."