“How’s Uncle Clarence feeling about Overturning Loving v Virginia??!!” Jackson posted to Twitter.
“Uncle Clarence” seems to be a reference to “Uncle Tom,” a racial term usually utilized to slander black Americans who buck the mainstream narrative. Merriam-Webster defines “Uncle Tom” as “a Black person who is overeager to win the approval of whites.”
FROM CONTROVERSY TO COMPASSION: DANIEL SNYDER'S JAW-DROPPING GIFT LEAVES NATION IN AWE
In the same tweet, Jackson took another racial shot at Thomas, seemingly for marrying a white woman, Ginni Thomas. Loving v. Virginia, determined in 1967, struck down state laws banning interracial marriages.
WATCH: RFK JR. WILL REVERSE 80 YEARS OF FARM POLICY
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.
JAMES CARVILLE'S CONTROVERSIAL CRITIQUE: IS WOKE CULTURE KILLING DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT?
“We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas announced. “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.”
INTRUDER SLIPS PAST TSA, BOARDS DELTA PLANE, IN EPIC SECURITY FAILURE
Obergefell v. Hodges, decided in 2015, discovered that the right to marry was guaranteed to same-sex couples.
FROM CONTROVERSY TO COMPASSION: DANIEL SNYDER'S JAW-DROPPING GIFT LEAVES NATION IN AWE
Lawyer Jenna Ellis claimed in 2018 that “originalist” judges would discover that both Roe and Obergefell should be overturned — which appears to jive with Thomas’ latest concurrence.
“It should be obvious to anyone who actually reads the Constitution’s text, that 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.”
WATCH: ATF IS SET TO CRIMINALIZE 10 MILLION AMERICANS
“This was judicial ‘finessing’ to cover up the inherent incongruency of these opinions with the Constitution — Casey, and Roe (and later, Obergefell) was about finding things that aren’t in the Constitution to advance a specific policy agenda rather than faithfully applying the law,” she claimed. “These cases are about imposing the opinion and preferences of a majority of activist judges over the rule of law.”