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.
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
Who is online
105 visitors
I am here on Newstalkers today to proudly take a stand against calling Justice Thomas "Uncle Clarence."
Are you with me, fellow lefties?
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?)
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?
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.
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]
[deleted,] his reasoning boils down to "it isn't in the constitution, therefore it isn't a right."
[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?
Is it really hard to understand that the logic applying to one case may to apply to many others? [deleted]
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.
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.
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.
I agree.
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.
good luck.
Nope. I agree with Samuel L.
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.
Not true ..... disgusted describes it better for many of us.
There are some psychologists who ascribe four basic human emotions (Happy/Sad/Fear/Anger). But I stumbled upon this:
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).
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.
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.
When has Thomas ever said anything about interracial marriage?
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.
Well, shit, then you've just validated Loving. As Professor Calabrese said:
Nope, not mentioned, explicitly, in the Constitution, therefore not a right. Originalist interpretation. Fuck You.
He has said two words that I am aware of.
"I do."
Bravo Samuel Jackson!!!
Yep, those who believe in biological determinism will love Jackson’s take. 1945 didn’t end that debate, for sure.
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]
You are right about that
The left is having overwrought hysteria and panic attacks about this decision.
Fear mongering at its worst.
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.
Not wrong. More ability to murder children and more children to murder. Pro life at its best lol.
Interesting.
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
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.
Of course I can, the evidence is overwhelming.
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.
Lol, that is your new branding. really? Try harder douchebag.
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.
Alex, what is "Things you say when your an ignorant racist?"