Kamala Harris slams Clarence Thomas for concurrence in case reversing ‘Roe’

Democrats are still smarting from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year to reverse the landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade, and Vice President Kamala Harris recently took particular aim at Justice Clarence Thomas for his concurrence to the pivotal opinion, as the Washington Examiner reports.

Harris’ comments came during a Chicago event held on behalf of Democrat Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, and in them, she floated the notion that, based on Thomas’ reasoning, same-sex marriage and the right to use contraception could be next for elimination if the GOP scores big midterm wins.

Ms. Harris laments

Speaking on what she believes could be the far-reaching implications of the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case, Harris opined, “Justice Clarence Thomas said the quiet part out loud.”

Sounding the alarm on the potential extrapolation of his reasoning to other key liberal areas of concern, Harris continued, “In the Dobbs decision, his piece of it was to say, basically, marriage equality is on the line, contraception is on the line.”

Harris was referring to Thomas’ concurring opinion in which he suggested, as Politico noted, that given the reasoning cited by the majority in Dobbs, the panel “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” the latter of which guaranteed same-sex couples the right to marry.

Imploring her ideological allies to action, the vice president added, “So see what is happening and what is at play here. See it clearly. We’ve got to hold on to our numbers in the House and the Senate, because without Democratic majorities in Congress, the writing on the wall seems to be pretty clear about what other rights they’ll also come after.”

“So our job is clear. And President Biden has been clear,” Harris continued. “He said he’s not going to allow archaic Senate rules to stand in the way of protecting these two freedoms. So that’s the job before us,” suggesting that is her party keeps control of the Senate and adds a small number of seats in the midterms, Roe can be codified into federal law.

Hyperbolic posture

Also slamming Thomas’ suggestion about revisiting a series of other key precedents was Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the aforementioned gay marriage case bearing his name, as the New York Post noted.

In Obergefell’s estimation, Thomas’ mention of the same-sex marriage case as one ripe for review, but his omission of the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia – which deemed bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional – was the height of hypocrisy.

Referencing Thomas’ own interracial union, Obergefell said that the justice was wrongly – and personally – selective when it comes to his pronouncement, telling CNN, “It’s a clear indication that if it’s a case that impacts him directly, it’s safe. But if it’s a case that protects other people, other people who are unlike him, then we’re not very safe.”

Based on the actual language used by Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the Dobbs majority, all of the controversies regarding Thomas’ concurrence may be little more than election-year posturing by those hoping to boost Democrat turnout in the midterm contests.

Emphasizing the limited scope of the ruling, Alito explained, “Our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” But, of course, heeding the plain meaning of those words would deprive folks like Harris of the type of incendiary call to arms needed to whip up the base come November.