Justice Clarence Thomas upstaged his conservative colleagues on the Supreme Court last month. Because they defied common sense to overrule Roe v. Wade (1973). In fact, they admitted their legal reasoning only made sense if applied to abortion.
But Thomas made a little more sense in his concurring opinion. This emboldened him to warn that his legal reasoning would apply well beyond Roe.
After banning abortion, Thomas signals same-sex marriage and contraceptives are next
Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, laid out a vision that prompted concerns about what other rights could disappear: The same rationale that the Supreme Court used to declare there was no right to abortion, he said, should also be used to overturn cases establishing rights to contraception, same-sex consensual relations and same-sex marriage.
(The New York Times, June 24, 2022)
Thomas is now the Court’s most senior and most powerful justice. And of course he’s Black and in an interracial marriage. So he has an EF-Hutton effect among his colleagues when he speaks, especially on matters of race.
Except that his vision is fraught with personal jeopardy. After all, the “same rationale” should also apply to interracial marriages, like his own. Which raises the question: Would Thomas outlaw his own marriage? Yes he would.
Justice Thomas is more a Republican than a justice
Republican policies are often racist, misogynistic, and homophobic. So you wouldn’t expect any Black man to champion them. Yet Thomas has been doing that since his first day on the Court.
Foremost, he led the Court in rolling back voting rights for Blacks like him in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General (2013). By the same, er token, I have no doubt he would do the same with Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). That case recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry. But I have no doubt he would lead the court in overruling Loving v. Virginia (1967). That case recognized the right of interracial couples to marry.
And, in each case, he would do so based on the same specious principle he cited to justify overruling Roe. Of course that case recognized the right of women to abortions. In short, his racial pathology is such that he would cut off his nose to spite his face.
I have often alluded in this context to Martin Niemöller’s poem of protest, “First They Came.” He warned that, after the Socialists, Trade Unionists, and Jews, the Nazis will come for you. I am warning that, after Blacks and women, the justices will come for gays and interracial couples.
A jurismanaical need to punish Democrats has animated Thomas’s career. And it all stems from his embarrassing confirmation hearing in 1991. So he ruled against every interest Democrats argued before the Supreme Court. But Blacks have suffered the brunt of his vendetta.
This means that Thomas is more of a political hack than an impartial judge. He claims to apply a strict interpretation of the rights written in the Constitution. He also recognizes rights deeply rooted in US history. But the logical effect of his legal reasoning would see America looking more like “Gilead.”
Ketanji Brown Jackson is the first Black woman appointed to the Supreme Court. And this is redolent with irony. Because there’s nothing new about a Black woman cleaning up the mess a Black man created.
Which brings me to the black thing afoot. You see, she personifies everything that sent Thomas down his vengeful path to begin with. So he will see in her everything he (still) hates about Anita Hill. The very Hill who caused the public humiliation that clearly still haunts him.
No doubt Thomas will begrudge Jackson’s intelligence. And he will try to diminish her in every case. This, because she too is Black and in an interracial marriage. Which means he’s no longer the Court’s EF Hutton on matters of race. I suspect his jealousy and resentment will be palpable.