On June 24, 2022 when the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, it wasn’t enough for Justice Clarence Thomas (pictured) to know he’d helped eradicate a woman’s right to her bodily autonomy.
He couldn’t just sit back and say, “There! That’ll show ‘em!”
No, Thomas had to add his own two cents’ worth in his concurring opinion, according to this any many other articles:
“…that the justices ‘should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell’ – referring to three cases having to do with Americans’ fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights.”
In other words, says the article:
“…that the Supreme Court ‘should reconsider’ its past rulings codifying rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.”
The article continues:
“The court’s liberal wing – Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – echoed concerns in a dissenting opinion released on Friday, writing that ‘no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work.’
“‘The constitutional right to abortion ‘does not stand alone,’ the three justices wrote. ‘To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation.’”
The writer of this article:
Expanded on Thomas two cents’ worth:
“…Thomas wrote that the high court has a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in Obergefell vs. Hodges (2015), which legalized same-sex marriage, Lawrence vs. Texas (2003), which protects same-sex relations, and Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965), which protects married couples’ access to contraception.”
Thomas wants to “correct the error.”
I wonder if Thomas feels that was about another Supreme Court landmark civil rights decision, this one from 1967?
1958: Virginia residents Mildred and Richard met in high school, fell in love, and got married.
A few weeks later, local police raided their home in the early morning hours. Mildred and Richard were arrested, and charged with breaking the law. They pled guilty and were each sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended on condition that the couple leave Virginia and not return together for at least 25 years.
Mildred Loving was black and Richard Loving was white, and their marriage violated Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which made marriage between whites and non-whites a crime.
The crime of miscegenation: a mixture of races especially marriage, cohabitation, or sexual intercourse between a white person and a member of another race.
Virginia wasn’t the only state with anti-miscegenation laws.
In fact, only nine states have never enacted anti-miscegenation laws: Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Vermont and Wisconsin.
Though Mildred and Richard had married in Washington, DC, their marriage wasn’t legal in Virginia.
The Lovings appealed their conviction to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which upheld it. They then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear their case.
In 1967, in Loving vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in the Lovings’ favor and overturned their convictions. Its decision struck down Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law and ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.
In 1967, the remaining 15 states with anti-miscegenation laws saw them overturned by Loving vs. Virginia – here’s a map, showing all 16 states in gray:
So, how about it, Justice Thomas?
Is Loving vs. Virginia one of those Supreme Court rulings you think should be “reconsidered’?
Is Loving vs. Virginia one of those “errors” that needs correcting?
Of course not – look who you’re married to!