Chicago Democratic Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who has been called the worst mayor in America and has done little to curb “out of control” crime in her city, once again showed behavior unbecoming a public official when she screamed to a crowd, “F*** Clarence Thomas!”
The embattled mayor made her crass statement in response to the recent Supreme Court decision regarding overturning the 1973 landmark ruling on Roe v. Wade.
Lightfoot raged, “If he thinks we are going to stand idly by while they take our rights …”
Lightfoot took aim at Justice Clarence Thomas because he wrote the concurrence which overturned the ruling. Notably absent from her articulate argument is that Thomas’ opinion largely followed the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s criticisms of Roe v. Wade.
Watch:
However, in his concurrence, Thomas went further than the other conservative justices. The Daily Wire notes that Thomas called for “all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” to be disregarded.
The Griswold v. Connecticut decision guarantees the “right to privacy” in respect to contraception, Lawrence v. Texas ruled that people had the right to “seek autonomy” in their private relationships, and Obergefell v. Hodges enshrined the right to same-sex marriage.
In his concurrence, Thomas explained the basis for overturning Roe — substantive due process: “The Court well explains why, under our substantive due process precedents, the purported right to abortion is not a form of ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause. Such a right is neither ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition nor ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,'” wrote Thomas.
Surprising many, Thomas then segued to questioning the constitutionality of due process: “As I have previously explained, ‘substantive due process’ is an oxymoron that ‘lack[s] any basis in the Constitution.'”
Quoting himself from a previous case McDonald v. Chicago, Thomas wrote:
The notion that a constitutional provision that guarantees only “process” before a person is deprived of life, liberty, or property could define the substance of those rights strains credulity for even the most casual user of words.
Thomas noted the other justices’ reluctance to address the substantive due process issue:
The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut … Lawrence v. Texas … and Obergefell v. Hodges … are not at issue.
Elaborating, Thomas wrote:
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents.
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. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
In additional excerpts from his concurrence, Thomas wrote:
… apart from being a demonstrably incorrect reading of the Due Process Clause, the “legal fiction” of substantive due process is “particularly dangerous.”… At least three dangers favor jettisoning the doctrine entirely. First, “substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority.
Second, substantive due process distorts other areas of constitutional law. For example, once this Court identifies a “fundamental” right for one class of individuals, it invokes the Equal Protection Clause to demand exacting scrutiny of statutes that deny the right to others.
Third, substantive due process is often wielded to “disastrous ends.”… For instance, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Court invoked a species of substantive due process to announce that Congress was powerless to emancipate slaves brought into the federal territories.”
… in future cases, we should “follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away. Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.
Scroll down to leave a comment and share your thoughts.