‘Uncle Clarence’: Samuel L. Jackson takes a shot at Clarence Thomas’ marriage

Hollywood actor Samuel L. Jackson attacked conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday, referring to him as “Uncle Clarence” after the court overturned Roe v. Wade.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court struck down the so-called constitutional right to obtain an abortion, effectively returning the issue to the states.

In a concurring opinion, which no other justices joined, Thomas said the court “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell” — which codified rights to contraception, homosexual activity, and gay marriage, respectively, according to Politico.

“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.”

Thomas’ stance appears to have drawn the ire of Jackson, an avowed liberal, who took a shot at the justice’s marriage.

“How’s Uncle Clarence feeling about Overturning Loving v Virginia??!!” he tweeted, referring to the 1967 Supreme Court ruling that said laws banning interracial marriage are unconstitutional.

Thomas is black, while his wife, Ginni, is white. As Fox News reported, “‘Uncle Clarence’ is likely a derogatory reference to the literary character ‘Uncle Tom,’ a slave character often associated with submission to a white ruling class.”

According to one legal expert, constitutional “originalist” justices would overturn both Roe and Obergefell v. Hodges.

“It should be obvious to anyone who actually reads the Constitution’s text, rights do not come from the Constitution,” lawyer Jenna Ellis wrote for The Daily Wire in 2018. “But neither Roe nor Planned Parenthood v. Casey found a ‘right to abortion’ in the Constitution anyway.

“These abortion cases didn’t even suggest this, but rather the Court found that the ‘right to privacy’ covers some abortions in some circumstances. Since these decisions, the Court has sought to ‘balance’ this right to privacy versus the state’s compelling interest in protecting human life. This was established as the ‘undue burden’ test in Casey.”

“This was judicial ‘finessing’ to cover up the inherent incongruency of these opinions with the Constitution — Casey and Roe (and later, Obergefell) were about finding things that aren’t in the Constitution to advance a specific policy agenda rather than faithfully applying the law,” Ellis said.

“These cases are about imposing the opinion and preferences of a majority of activist judges over the rule of law.”