Clarence Thomas is a Hypocrite

In his concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas said that the Court should reconsider other due process cases, and he implied, let the states become theocracies. In doing so, Clarence Thomas announced to the world that he is a hypocrite.

In his opinion, Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” The ruling in Griswold struck down Connecticut’s ban on contraception. In Lawrence, the Court struck down a Texas law that criminalized homosexuality. And in Obergefell, the Court ruled that prohibitions on same-sex marriages are unconstitutional. According to Thomas, all of these rulings should be reviewed, and presumably, overturned.

While suggesting that the states should be allowed to prohibit adults from buying contraception, prohibit homosexuality, and prohibit same sex marriage, Thomas was interestingly silent on another due process case: Loving v. Virginia (1967).

In Loving, the Court ruled that laws prohibiting interracial marriage are unconstitutional. The Virginia law prohibited individuals from marrying the person of their choice. Thomas has suggested that states be allowed to prohibit individuals from marrying the person of their choice if the people involved happen to be the same sex. He was silent on the issue of people choosing to marry someone of a different race.

Thomas, a black man, is married to a white woman. I have no problem with this. He, like every adult individual, should be free to marry another adult, so long as the marriage is consensual. If two adults voluntarily choose to be married, the government has no moral right to interfere, regardless of their sex or race. Thomas has suggested otherwise.

Clarence Thomas is an intelligent man. That he chose to omit Loving from the list of due process cases that should be reconsidered shows that he is also a hypocrite. He wants the states to be allowed to whatever laws “the people” demand, but apparently, he draws the line when those demands might actually have an impact on his own life.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that Loving should also be reconsidered. None of these rulings should be reconsidered or overturned. Consenting adults should be free to interact as they choose. Thomas suggests otherwise.