Samuel Jackson Rips 'Uncle Clarence' Thomas For Risking Interracial Marriage In Roe Reversal | HuffPost Latest News

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  gulliver  •  2 months ago  •  49 comments

By:   blatherat (HuffPost)

Samuel Jackson Rips 'Uncle Clarence' Thomas For Risking Interracial Marriage In Roe Reversal | HuffPost Latest News
"How's Uncle Clarence feeling about Overturning Loving v. Virginia?" the actor tweeted, referring to the 1967 ruling that protected interracial marriage.

"How's Uncle Clarence feeling about Overturning Loving v. Virginia?" the actor tweeted, referring to the 1967 ruling that protected interracial marriage.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Actor Samuel Jackson slammed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as "Uncle Clarence" for jeopardizing the legal right to interracial marriage with the court's decision Friday to overturn of Roe v. Wade.

The same rationale the conservative court employed to reverse the 1973 decision on abortion rights could now be used to eliminate the right to same-sex marriage, contraception and interracial marriage, which was protected in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling, lawmakers and scholars fear.

Jackson bashed Thomas as "Uncle Clarence" in a Friday night tweet, referring to the excessively servile Black character in Harriet Beecher Stowe's pre-Civil War novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin."


How's Uncle Clarence feeling about Overturning Loving v Virginia??!!
— Samuel L. Jackson (@SamuelLJackson) June 25, 2022

The Roe decision suggested that the legal underpinnings of the constitutional protection for abortion were weakly based on arguments that have supported other Supreme Court cases guaranteeing various rights, including the right to contraception and same-sex and interracial marriage.

In a solo concurring opinion Friday, Thomas suggested that the court should "correct the error" by withdrawing granted rights now protected under the "substantive due process clause" of the 14th Amendment.


Wonder if Loving v Virginia is next on the list of cases for Justice Thomas to overrule
— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) June 24, 2022

But Thomas specifically named only the rights to same-sex marriage and contraception. He side-stepped the Loving case, which, if overturned as Roe was, could threaten his own interracial marriage to Ginni Thomas.

Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff behind the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on same-sex marriage, said Friday that Thomas omitted Loving v. Virginia on his list of top court decisions to "reconsider" because it "affects him personally."

That "affects him personally, but he doesn't care about the LGBTQ+ community," Obergefell said on MSNBC's "The Reid Out."

Though some Thomas supporters criticized Jackson for what they called a "racist" attack on the justice, the actor's Twitter followers mostly applauded the dig — and the issue:


Damn! Samuel Jackson, hot Damn!
way to tell him! https://t.co/b00cVHvRzF

— save democracy (@defenestrate161) June 25, 2022

— Rex Chapman (@RexChapman) June 25, 2022


NEW: Samuel L. Jackson just called out Clarence Thomas' hypocrisy for calling to overturn same-sex marriage and contraception but not interracial marriage, which was decided on the same grounds: "How's Uncle Clarence feeling about Overturning Loving v Virginia??!!"
— No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen (@NoLieWithBTC) June 25, 2022


pic.twitter.com/Et5RyD17gH
— Cesar (@CesarAlves_76) June 25, 2022


Exactly. pic.twitter.com/1VR0zRzdRH
— Hypocrisy Now. (@Hypocrisy_45) June 25, 2022


I've been thinking it. Glad @SamuelLJackson said it
— Alex Skolnick (@AlexSkolnick) June 25, 2022


Weird.
Interracial marriage WAS illegal in some states until the Loving decision.
What states would outlaw interracial marriage?
The same states which are imposing their will on women by outlawing abortion are probably at the top of the list.

— Shelley Kelly's Cheese and Jellies (@MainelyGill) June 25, 2022


Odd that it's the only one he didn't specify in his list of precedents that should be revisited.
That's weird, right?

— Schrodinger's Zen...(or Roger) (@RWNJ_) June 25, 2022


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
1  seeder  Revillug    2 months ago

I am here on Newstalkers today to proudly take a stand against calling Justice Thomas "Uncle Clarence."

Are you with me, fellow lefties?

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
1.1  dennis smith  replied to  Revillug @1    2 months ago

Pure speculation about what could "happen" 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  dennis smith @1.1    2 months ago

It is not "pure speculation" about what could happen.  

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
1.1.2  dennis smith  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.1    2 months ago

What proof do you have that it is not speculation.

 
 
 
Duck Hawk
Freshman Silent
1.2  Duck Hawk  replied to  Revillug @1    2 months ago

Sorry, but I think Jackson called it right. Thomas was strangely quiet on the subject of IR marriage... He's a fool if he thinks that isn't on the table. (I wonder if Ginny will divorce him?)

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Duck Hawk @1.2    2 months ago

Well, Thomas is not an idiot. He knows Loving relies on the equal protection clause, and he was discussing substantive due process. 

if you notice, his decision didn’t touch upon the right to a speedy trial either. What do you think that means?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
1.2.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.1    2 months ago

It means that he was trying to be extremely selective about how his idiotic "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution should be utilized. Basically he is an "originalist" when it doesn't directly effect him, AKA a piece of shit. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.2.2    2 months ago

Lol. No, he just didn't dumb it down enough for some readers.  [deleted]

He addressed substantive due process cases while discussing a substantive due process case.  He didn't address a case that is premised on equal protection, for what should be obvious reasons. 

[deleted]

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
1.2.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.3    2 months ago

[deleted,] his reasoning boils down to "it isn't in the constitution, therefore it isn't a right."

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.2.4    2 months ago

[deleted] A Justice doesn't discuss every case under the sun each time he makes a decision. [deleted] Is it really that hard to understand why he doesn't talk about other constitutional provisions when discussing a specific one?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
1.2.6  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.5    2 months ago

Is it really hard to understand that the logic applying to one case may to apply to many others? [deleted]

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
1.2.7  seeder  Revillug  replied to  Duck Hawk @1.2    2 months ago
Sorry, but I think Jackson called it right.

I don't question Jackon's reasoning on why Justice Thomas is politically deplorable and quite frankly carrying water for a racist agenda. We could politely put Justice Thomas on Freud's imaginary sofa and come up with some explanations for why he is the way he is. 

But I do question whether it is counterproductive to get down in the gutter and start name calling and calling anyone an Uncle Tom. I am reminded in this regard of Michelle Obama. One of the best things she ever said was, "when they go low, we go high."

I realize some of you are gagging at the thought of me taking the high road when it comes to trolling. A quick read through my comment history shows that I am not the designated pitcher qualified to cast the first stone. But when you have a high profile like Jackson does a certain amount of responsibility comes with that fame.

In the end, all this kind of behavior does is add to the canon of whataboutisms that the right points to in order to justify their own name calling. As our planet cooks and we choke on microplastics while modern war rages in Europe, let us take a minute to ponder whether we are a nation of grownups or children.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Revillug @1    2 months ago
I am here on Newstalkers today to proudly take a stand against calling Justice Thomas "Uncle Clarence."

I think that if another Black man decides he deserves to be called such a name, it's not my place to say otherwise.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.3    2 months ago
I think that if another Black man decides he deserves to be called such a name, it's not my place to say otherwise.

Exactly, we should keep any criticisms of others behavior, racially segregated.  

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
1.3.2  seeder  Revillug  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.1    2 months ago
criticisms

I don't have a problem with criticizing Thomas. I have a problem with the mainstreaming and normalizing of ugly name calling. If I called someone an Uncle Tom at work I would likely be sent down to HR and it would probably not end well. It would get kind of weird, in my opinion, if the standard was that a black person could call a black person an Uncle Tom but a white person couldn't. Are we then at a place where women can call each other bitches and sluts but men can't? I am not arguing in favor of me being allowed to use such nasty language at work. Nobody should be using it.

And then there is Twitter.

There is a reason I never last on Twitter for more than about ten days before I delete  my account. Samuel Jackson is not being helpful.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Revillug @1.3.2    2 months ago

I agree.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.3.4  Sparty On  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.3    2 months ago

That’s the type of messed up reasoning that screws up the works.    It’s like the N word.    Some think it’s okay if a black person uses it but not a white person.    Crazy. 

The double standard at play here is simply egregious.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Revillug @1    2 months ago

good luck. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Revillug @1    2 months ago

Nope.  I agree with Samuel L.

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
1.5.1  seeder  Revillug  replied to  Tessylo @1.5    2 months ago

I let my hair down a bit on this website because it's kind of small and nobody is really paying attention to me beyond this little fiefdom of hair-down wackos.

But when it comes to how I talk to my family and friends, I am a lot more careful in my choice of words. The phrase, "that guy is a bit of an Uncle Tom," would never cross my lips.

When you have an audience the size that Samuel L Jackson does a certain amount of responsibility comes with it.

But heck, we are all angry.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.5.2  Sparty On  replied to  Revillug @1.5.1    2 months ago
But heck, we are all angry.

Not true ..... disgusted describes it better for many of us.

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
1.5.3  seeder  Revillug  replied to  Sparty On @1.5.2    2 months ago

There are some psychologists who ascribe four basic human emotions (Happy/Sad/Fear/Anger). But I stumbled upon this:

However, using a new technique and software, researchers from the Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology at Glasgow University are challenging this and suggest that there are in fact, only four emotions: happiness, sadness, fear/surprise, and anger/disgust . This is because fear and surprise looked very similar, sharing the same facial expressions of raised eyebrows, as did anger and disgust, which shared a wrinkled nose.

I seem to recall happy, sad, fear, and anger as being the previously floated four basic emotions.

It's interesting that you see people as disgusted rather than angry. 

I see angry people motivated to do something about their anger and disgusted people as on the verge of depression (where depression is viewed as anger turned inward).

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Expert
2  Raven Wing    2 months ago
Actor Samuel Jackson slammed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as "Uncle Clarence" for jeopardizing the legal right to interracial marriage with the court's decision Friday to overturn of Roe v. Wade.

And Clarence Thomas having a white wife. I guess he thinks it is OK for him to be in a interracial marriage but for not anyone else. Unless they are a Republican, of course. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
2.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Raven Wing @2    2 months ago
he thinks it is OK for him to be in a interracial marriage but for not anyone else

It's okay for anyone as long as they stay "excessively servile" to white conservative Christians and their needs which come first in their ideal conservative America.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Raven Wing @2    2 months ago

When has Thomas ever said anything about interracial marriage?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
2.2.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2    2 months ago

Never. He has never said his "originalist" interpretation should apply to that, funny isn't it? 

I have a feeling those who wrote the constitution would frown very, VERY, deeply on that issue. But, shit I am just looking at it from an 'originalist" perspective. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.1    2 months ago
But, shit I am just looking at it from an 'originalist" perspective.

Well, shit, then you've just validated Loving.  As Professor Calabrese said:

 "The justices who cannot explain Loving are the ones who accord primacy to doctrine and caselaw, as Chief
Justice Roberts seems to do, or Justice Stephen Breyer, who would defer to the people’s democratically expressed sentiments. It is Breyer’s approach which leads to Pace v. Alabama
and to Plessy; not Justice Scalia’s or Justice Thomas"

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
2.2.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.2    2 months ago

Nope, not mentioned, explicitly, in the Constitution, therefore not a right. Originalist interpretation. Fuck You.

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
2.2.4  seeder  Revillug  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2    2 months ago
When has Thomas ever said anything about interracial marriage?

He has said two words that I am aware of.

"I do."

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3  Buzz of the Orient    2 months ago

Bravo Samuel Jackson!!!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    2 months ago

Yep, those who believe in biological determinism will love Jackson’s take. 1945 didn’t end that debate, for sure.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3.1.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1    2 months ago
biological determinism

And what exactly do you mean by that? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.1.1    2 months ago
And what exactly do you mean by that? 

That some ones race determines how and what they think. Race loyalty is very popular among Nazis and other racists, [deleted]

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3.1.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.2    2 months ago

You are right about that

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4  Greg Jones    2 months ago

The left is having overwrought hysteria and panic attacks about this decision.

Fear mongering at its worst.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
4.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Greg Jones @4    2 months ago

Not fear mongering at its worst dude, it is the SCOTUS actually taking away a right. I know you may not understand the significance of this but my wife and basically every woman I know do.

This may be hard for you to grasp, but pregnancy and childrearing is a big deal, and it really fucks the mothers in terms of career 99% of the time.  Forcing women to give birth, especially teenagers, can completely fuck them over for the rest of their lives. You are literally stealing their futures from them by making them have children before they want to or are ready, before they are emotionally or (and most importantly) financially prepared. 

And as anyone who has any experience in domestic abuse will tell you, financial equality is always the first casualty. If you take away a person's money then you take their voice, and their power. That is why DV perps ALWAYS try to control their partner's money, without it they have little recourse in this country. Basically forcing women to give birth to children, and subsequently pull them out of the workforce (eliminating financial independence) , is the best way to forcing them back into the subservient, second class citizen role(at best) they have had for the last 4000 years before the late 1800s.

And that is the ultimate goal of many religious conservatives. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Kavika   replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1    2 months ago
And that is the ultimate goal of many religious conservatives. 
Gomez, Catholic bishops hail overturning of Roe v. Wade

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5  Kavika     2 months ago

290430125_10166464773000249_6024277062480060161_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_aid=0&_nc_ohc=Y0Z_ZFJlb6MAX_IJjIs&_nc_ht=scontent-mia3-2.xx&oh=00_AT9tz7hcFeyrKrFAYTHJ9IKQL_8ZXyHr4wjuWM1wYb6p2w&oe=62BD96F2

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Kavika @5    2 months ago

Not wrong. More ability to murder children and more children to murder. Pro life at its best lol. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1    2 months ago
ore ability to murder children and more children to murder. Pro life at its best lol

Interesting. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.1.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.1    2 months ago

That is one way i can describe the "pro life" crowd. Love baies, til they are born, then murder them by the thousands via preventable diseases, treatable illnesses, GUN VIOLENCE, malnutrition, etc..

Care about babies til they are born, after that, fuck'em. Conservative (ESPECIALLY RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVE) motto

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1.2    2 months ago

I really don't care what unhinged language you use.  

It just makes  perfect sense you can accuse pro lifers of murdering babies on this site.  100% what I would expect.    

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.1.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.3    2 months ago

Of course I can, the evidence is overwhelming. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.1.5  Ronin2  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1.2    2 months ago

There is another way to describe the pro death crowd, aka pro abortionists. Kill them in the womb as often as they can, for any reason they can; and make sure laws are lax as they can so that abortions can be conducted up until the birth date. Don't protect them outside of the womb, by making sure they live under increasing debt; resources hardships; and making sure only criminals have guns. And cater to illegal immigrants because they are far more valuable than US citizens.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.1.6  Thrawn 31  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.5    2 months ago
There is another way to describe the pro death crowd, aka pro abortionists. 

Lol, that is your new branding. really? Try harder douchebag. 

Kill them in the womb as often as they can, for any reason they can; and make sure laws are lax as they can so that abortions can be conducted up until the birth date. Don't protect them outside of the womb, by making sure they live under increasing debt; resources hardships; and making sure only criminals have guns. And cater to illegal immigrants because they are far more valuable than US citizens.

Or.... allow individual women to make the choice to have a child based upon their own circumstances, provide increased assistance to those women either way they choose, and provide further assistance to those who choose to give birth to their children. 

The rest of your horseshit post is just a bunch of political bullshit that has little to nothing to do with the topic at hand and you are talking just to talk. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2  Tessylo  replied to  Kavika @5    2 months ago

290138462_5218755311554175_1274713495676154659_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=lQgfXCmUMOYAX_n5heq&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT9BbEooy0tfSWk7ECB7E9G97kWiu68bS4hRwl8jslVpgw&oe=62BE3097

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
6  Jeremy Retired in NC    2 months ago
'Uncle Clarence' Thomas

Alex, what is "Things you say when your an ignorant racist?"

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
7  magicschoolbusdropout    2 months ago

Actor Samuel Jackson slammed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as "Uncle Clarence" for jeopardizing the legal right to interracial marriage with the court's decision Friday to overturn of Roe v. Wade.

The "kneeJERKS" are starting to come out in "Force", with ANYTHING they can come up with.

Didn't Samuel Jackson have a MAJOR MELTDOWN with a Reporter for simply calling him the wrong name by accident, in an interview, but now Sammy finds it AOK to call Justice Thomas his "Uncle" ?

WTF ?

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
7.1  seeder  Revillug  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @7    2 months ago

Samuel Jackson has lost my vote!

Wait..he's not running for anything.

 
 

Who is online