Fox so-called "news" so-called "legal editor" Kerri Kupec Urbahn played apologist for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his corrupt insurrectionist wife Ginni when asked about whether Thomas should recuse on Trump’s 2024 eligibility.

Here are Raskin's comments from this Sunday on CNN's State of the Union that host Trace Gallagher read to Urbahn:

RASKIN: But I think anybody looking at this in any kind of dispassionate, reasonable way would say, if your wife was involved in the big lie and claiming that Donald Trump had actually won the presidential election and had been agitating for that and participating in the events leading up to January 6, that you shouldn't be participating in...

BASH: So, he should recuse himself?

RASKIN: He should. Oh, he absolutely should recuse himself. The question is, what do we do if he doesn't recuse himself?

Urbahn responded by, one, ignoring or downplaying the role Thomas played in helping to orchestrate the events on January 6th and to overturn the election, and two, by pretending that people concerned about Russian interference in the 2016 election is the same thing as Trump and his cronies attempting a coup against the democratically elected administration that was coming in to replace him.

URBAHN: You know, for a party who had been very upset that Donald Trump could not accept the 2020 election results, they seem to be having a very hard time still accepting the 2016 election results, and that is that Donald Trump won. Elections have consequences, and when you're president, you get to appoint justices and judges. That's what he did here.

And, this idea that because one justice happens to have an outspoken conservative spouse, that somehow that means there's grounds for recusal is ludicrous. And, you know, the best way to go about accessing this is to look at the code of ethics and the code of conduct that the Supreme Court has.

And I took a look at it again earlier today, and typically, grounds for refusal includes a financial interest of the justice, or a spouse, immediate family member, or, maybe the spouse is a party to the lawsuit or a lawyer, and a party to the case.

None of those seem to fit here. The Democrats again are just having a very hard time accepting the fact that the rules did not go their way, and they want to change the rules to get their way.

Just "an outspoken conservative spouse," huh? Here are some of the very appropriate responses to this claptrap from the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.