General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSamuel L. Jackson goes in on Clarence Thomas with a Supreme Court decision reminder that hits close
With the Supreme Courts overturning of Roe v Wade, which federally prohibited any absolute ban on access to abortion, there has been a considerable uproar from everyday people to reproductive justice activists, to celebrities. Oscar-holding actor Samuel L Jackson has made a particular jab at Justice Clarence Thomas on Twitter, pointing out how a continued overturning of historic civil rights cases would not be in the judges personal interest.
The Supreme Court case of Loving v Virginia in 1967 decided that it was unconstitutional for states to legislate against interracial marriages and was a significant milestone in the upswing of civil rights in the 1960s. Its a case that was also important for supporting the legal case for gay marriage in Obergefell v Hodges.
Link to tweet
What Jackson appears to be specifically referring to is that Justice Clarence Thomas, who is one of the judges that voted for the overruling of the judgement and has suggested he would like to overturn other civil rights cases, is in an interracial marriage. If Loving v Virginia was overturned, then the legality of Thomas marriage to Ginny Thomas, who is no stranger to controversy herself given the accusations of her involvement in the efforts to overturn President Joseph Bidens election, would then be at the whim of the state he resides in as opposed to having federal protection.
Jackson is not the only celebrity to call out the decision. From Megan Thee Stallion to Ariana DeBose, to Cher, many have expressed their frustration at the biggest rollback of abortion rights in the US in decades. However, his callout is perhaps more personal than most.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/samuel-l-jackson-goes-in-on-clarence-thomas-with-a-supreme-court-decision-reminder-that-hits-close-to-home/ar-AAYQJhb
dalton99a
(81,526 posts)or make her a honorary Black if she agrees to it
LenaBaby61
(6,974 posts)ecstatic
(32,712 posts)Stuart G
(38,436 posts)Buns_of_Fire
(17,183 posts)MFGsunny
(2,356 posts)Trailrider1951
(3,414 posts)milestogo
(16,829 posts)Mr. Evil
(2,849 posts)Of course, would we expect the great Samuel L. Jackson to not go there? And he knows "Uncle Clarence" will have no reply to that.
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)LenaBaby61
(6,974 posts)One of his old girlfriends who he wanted to have a threesome with who was black said that he hated black people. Also, he lied on his sister and said she was on welfare and taking advantage of the welfare state which was all a LIE. He's a disgusting, treasonous, evil, rotten, self-hating asshole. He'll resign to make sure that treasonous, insane, racist wife of his doesn't get in trouble, because IF what I'm hearing and reading is true, "they" got the goods on that goon. Yeah, they'll get away with what they've done, but at least he'll be OFF the high court and Biden will have another justice up there. It won't balance the court, because you still have other reich-winged, racist Federalists up there, but just knowing that the Thomas Monsters are off the court making laws to destroy this country will KILL them both, because they're such fucking maniacs & narcissists who can't do anymore damage.
I do hope that moving forward a law is adopted where there IS an age limit to justices on ALL of the court and that there are ethics guidelines, because this mostly pathologically lying, Federalist, Opus Dei, dark money bought off, mostly male catholic plus one crazy-eyed handmaiden in her OWN cult ain't it.
This is the most corrupt, defiled, anti-american high court ever, and we've had some very racist and anti-black american courts in the past.
PTWB
(4,131 posts)No matter what he or his wife did, unfortunately.
LenaBaby61
(6,974 posts)I'm confident he'll be leaving, you don't think so .....
We'll see ....
PTWB
(4,131 posts)ZonkerHarris
(24,229 posts)KS Toronado
(17,267 posts)To tie Clarence to his wife in the planning of overturning an election, could we send him to prison?
Kinda hard to work from prison if you're a judge, Congress should be able to find a way to remove
him from the court IF that would happen.
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)At worst, he could use his weekly phone call to say "i vote the same as Alito, but have the clerks write up a slightly meaner concurrence on every third opinion"
malthaussen
(17,205 posts)That's considered a lifetime appointment, as opposed to an appointment "at pleasure," but it does mean a Judge can be removed if his behavior is not good, and the will exists to remove him. Impeachment does not apply only to elected officials. But of course, it is subject to the whim of Congress.
-- Mal
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)dchill
(38,505 posts)dixiechiken1
(2,113 posts)YoshidaYui
(41,832 posts)Pluvious
(4,313 posts)malthaussen
(17,205 posts)I do hope people understand that these folks have been waiting and planning for years to unleash the dogs of war. They want to erase decades of history while they're still alive to gloat about it.
-- Mal
ZonkerHarris
(24,229 posts)JohnnyRingo
(18,636 posts)You win. I can go outside now.
ZonkerHarris
(24,229 posts)SayItLoud
(1,702 posts)The only way he can get rid of the POS wife, Ginny.
jaxexpat
(6,837 posts)This whole thing is just Clarence's way of unloading the fat white broad who ties his shoes backwards every morning. He's been planning it for decades, obviously.
Tetrachloride
(7,851 posts)or just plain runs.
He thinks he has Harry Potters Invisibility Cloak.
The modern day of BTS army or such can change their arrogance in a hurry.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,626 posts)Cancel all your films and concerts in those states, then Ill be impressed.
Tweets are free.
Ferrets are Cool
(21,107 posts)That's only fair, right? Tweets are free as are post in DU.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,626 posts)I wont even visit anti-choice states.
LittleGirl
(8,287 posts)and I just want to say, 15 years plus is valid and I dont care what he thinks.
Thomas for clarification.
SouthernLiberal
(407 posts)I too am in an Interracial marriage. Still a newly wed. I am horrified by the willingness of our Supreme Court to undo our rights. I saw something recently pointing out that one of these newly discovered rights was decided in Brown v The Board of Education. That made public education integrated. It is not that much older than abortion rights. It was decided in the year I was born 68 years ago.
mucifer
(23,554 posts)if they don't
YoshidaYui
(41,832 posts)malthaussen
(17,205 posts)BonnieJW
(2,266 posts)Uncle Thomas. A play on the original Uncle Tom and it really is his name
malthaussen
(17,205 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,952 posts)I'm sure he would not be enjoying life much.
Scottie Mom
(5,812 posts)...the offer to the Lovings was move out of the State of do 25 years.
scipan
(2,351 posts)Link to tweet
?t=qdN9hKqn9UcCUIAUPlXshg&s=19
rubbersole
(6,702 posts)erpowers
(9,350 posts)Can someone please explain how liberals made his life hell for 43 years? I am not trying to take away from Clarence Thomas' hard work, but as far as I can tell all liberals did was make it easier for him to get into college and law school and easier for him to get a job.
Does he blame liberal policies for his having to live with his grandfather? Is he angry that liberals fought for women to have the same rights as men? I highly doubt liberals at Yale told her he was inferior to them? I believe Thomas once said that when he went to Yale Law School he felt inferior to the white students due to Affirmative Action. It is not the fault of liberals that Thomas felt inferior to white people at school and work. That is squarely on his and his grandfather's shoulders. Does he blame liberals for women feeling they had the right to turn him down for sex? Does he blame liberals for women having the courage to report his bad behavior toward women? Surely he can't blame liberals for this marriage to Ginni Thomas. So, what is he so angry about?
Scottie Mom
(5,812 posts)If there are no privacy rights, then along with abortion/healthcare rights, same-sex marriage, and the right to use birth control, the right of inter-racial marriage goes away, too.
sop
(10,205 posts)Governor (R): "We just passed a bill making the interbreeding of people of different racial types a felony." The fact we're even discussing miscegenation shows how far down into Hell this extremist court has dragged the country.
malthaussen
(17,205 posts)Then again, maybe by that point, overt racism will be considered a good thing.
-- Mal
Scottie Mom
(5,812 posts)Just like with Roe...when overturned, the laws on the books in the states that banned abortion, they became the controlling law for the state. Seems to me that there most likely are laws on the books that ban the mixing of races and but for Loving v. Virginia, they would pstill be in effect today. Overrule Loving...and voila...mixed race marriages are again banned and perhaps like in Virginia pre-Loving, criminalized.
Ferrets are Cool
(21,107 posts)JohnnyRingo
(18,636 posts)Hypothetically, I wonder how the Supreme Piece Of Shit would vote on that.
Reminds me of the Dave Chappelle skit with the blind black Klan leader. He had to divorce his wife when he found out she was married to a black man.
Mblaze
(260 posts)Alitos rules for overturning Roe v Wade. Inter-racial marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution and it wasnt the prevalent social norm at the time the Constitution was written. There are many rights that fail those parameters. This all boils down to the bias of Christian Justices who pick and choose which rights to reverse.
treestar
(82,383 posts)neither is heterosexual marriage.
Initech
(100,081 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)I'd assume.
fortunately the marriage cases have different basis, which can't be overruled as easily.