Democrats have seemingly tried everything under the sun to attack and undermine conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court, and have especially targeted Justice Clarence Thomas. 

In a recent piece for The Washington Post, associate editor Ruth Marcus demanded that Justice Thomas recuse himself from a number of incoming Jan. 6-related cases based on his wife's conservative activism at the time.

The argument has been made by the left on several occasions, and it's clearly not convincing enough to move Thomas on the issue.

"So, demands for recusal shouldn’t be lightly made, and justices shouldn’t quickly resort to that solution notwithstanding the clamor. Nonetheless, there are situations in which law and common sense clearly counsel a justice to step aside," Marcus wrote, after explaining how rare it should be for a SCOTUS justice to recuse themselves from a case.

She added, "The extensive — indeed, passionate — involvement of the justice’s wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, in challenging the election results is a textbook example of a situation that requires recusal."

Of course, she's honing in on Ginni Thomas' activism in the wake of the 2020 election.

In one sentence, she admits that the spouses of Supreme Court justices "have the right" to pursue whatever career they want, but then adds that can come with consequences.

Marcus wrote, "Justices’ spouses have every right to pursue separate careers, including careers in politics and advocacy, as Ginni Thomas chose. But those choices have consequences when cases in which they have an interest reach the Supreme Court."

The Post editor dialed in on what she believes are several examples of Ginni Thomas' activism that should be taken into consideration as far as Justice Thomas hearing Jan. 6-related cases.

Further down her piece, she writes, "Certainly, a spouse’s political activities can’t be automatically attributed to their partner."

She even quoted Ginni Thomas as going on record saying that she and her husband do not discuss work and aren't involved in each others' lives in that capacity.

But then Marcus, disregarding all of that, wrote that Justice Thomas' "impartiality might reasonably be questioned," which she believes is grounds for his recusal from any Jan. 6 cases.

Marcus argued that it's the "entire court whose reputation will suffer if he chooses not to step aside."

Meanwhile, Thomas will sleep well tonight as the left continues to try their best at hitting him.