Actor Samuel L. Jackson on Friday launched a racial attack against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas after the court overruled abortion decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, effectively kicking abortion restrictions back to the states.
How’s Uncle Clarence feeling about Overturning Loving v Virginia??!!
— Samuel L. Jackson (@SamuelLJackson) June 25, 2022
Thomas notably wrote in his concurrence to Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that the high court “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” The Daily Wire reported.
“We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas said. “After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.”
Obergefell v. Hodges, decided in 2015, found that the right to marry was guaranteed to same-sex couples.
Lawyer Jenna Ellis argued in 2018 that “originalist” judges would find that both Roe and Obergefell should be overturned — which seems to jive with Thomas’ latest concurrence.
“It should be obvious to anyone who actually reads the Constitution’s text, rights do not come from the Constitution,” Ellis wrote at The Daily Wire. “But neither Roe nor Planned Parenthood v. Casey found a ‘right to abortion’ in the Constitution anyway. These abortion cases didn’t even suggest this, but rather the Court found that the ‘right to privacy’ covers some abortions in some circumstances. Since these decisions, the Court has sought to ‘balance’ this right to privacy versus the state’s compelling interest in protecting human life. This was established as the ‘undue burden’ test in Casey.”
“This was judicial ‘finessing’ to cover up the inherent incongruency of these opinions with the Constitution — Casey and Roe (and later, Obergefell) were about finding things that aren’t in the Constitution to advance a specific policy agenda rather than faithfully applying the law,” she argued. “These cases are about imposing the opinion and preferences of a majority of activist judges over the rule of law.”