Linkedin Share
Wire

Hillary Clinton Accused of 'Playing the Angry Black Man Card' After Attacking Clarence Thomas

Linkedin Share

Hillary Clinton on Tuesday vented her anger over the Supreme Court ruling that overturned the Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion, facing social media rebuke for her attack on Justice Clarence Thomas.

Thomas was among the justices who supported overturning the Roe v. Wade ruling. In a concurring opinion, Thomas also said the court “should reconsider” rulings that allowed same-sex marriage, endorsed access to contraception and supported same-sex relationships.

That made him a target for Clinton, who spoke on “CBS Mornings.” Clinton graduated from Yale Law School in 1973, one year before Thomas did the same.

Trending:
Massive Migrant Caravan Marches Toward US with LGBT Flags Flying as Mexican President Snubs Biden at Summit

“He’s been a person of grievance for as long as I’ve known him,” she said, characterizing Thomas as filled with “resentment, grievance, anger,” according to Fox News.

Clinton claimed that Thomas is speaking to “right-wing” legislatures, judges and justices in his concurring opinion.

“He has signaled in the past to lower courts, to state legislatures, ‘Find cases. Pass laws. Get them up. I may not win the first, the second or the third time, but we’re going to keep at it,'” she said.

Clinton’s comments were criticized by many on Twitter.

Related:
Op-Ed: 3 Big Reasons Why We Should Abolish the IRS

Clinton implied that the ruling was part of a right-wing attempt to pack the court, a term usually used for efforts supported by liberals to increase the size of the court, so that its current conservative majority could be outnumbered.

“I think that was the goal of packing the Court with justices who were on the record for many years of being against women’s constitutional rights to make decisions about our own bodies. I was deeply sorry that it actually happened,” she said, according to CBS.

“But now that it has happened, I think everybody understands that this is not necessarily the only effort that we’re going to see this Court undertake to turn back the clock on civil rights.”

Does it matter any longer what Hillary Clinton says?

During her interview, Clinton said that abortion is a life-or-death issue, but not for the babies whose lives are ended.

“There are so many things about it that are deeply distressing, but women are going to die, Gayle. Women are going to die,” Clinton told Gayle King, Fox reported.

In his concurring opinion, Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell.”

Griswold v. Connecticut was a 1965 court ruling that said married couples have a right to buy and use contraception without government permission. The 2003 ruling of Lawrence v. Texas ruled that penalties for sodomy or private sex acts between consenting adults are unconstitutional. Obergefell v. Hodges is a 2015 case that legalized same-sex marriages.

“We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote.

“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,” he wrote.

Thomas dissented in the Lawrence and Obergefell rulings.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Submit a Correction →



Linkedin Share

Conversation