By Lafe Tolliver, Esq
Guest Column
As much as I have disdain for Uncle Tom Clarence Thomas, a United States Supreme Court jurstice, Clarence Thomas was prescient in making sure that in his statements about overturning Roe v. Wade (where he alluded to possible future legal attacks on the ability to obtain contraceptives, same sex marriage and gay rights), he made a newsworthy notable exception.
Clarence Thomas was extremely careful in his dissent to carve out an unexplained exception for interracial marriages which was recognized as a constitutional protection enunciated in the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia.
As you may know, Clarence Thomas is married to Virginia (Ginni) Thomas who has been accused of facilitating the atmosphere that led to the January 6th riot and insurrection at the Capitol.
The proceedings against Ginni Thomas are in the embryonic stages and we do not know at this time whether she will face federal charges of encouraging a coup against the American government.
But, one thing we do know with absolute certainty is that Ginni Thomas is as white as a bar of Dove soap. As white as a glass of two percent milk. As white as…well, you get the gist.
When Clarence Thomas was writing his blistering opinion in the Roe case, one must wonder if he mused about whether his penned statements will come back to haunt him. Because the same rationale that the Supreme Court used in overturning the Roe case, is the same “logic” that Clarence Thomas would use in overturning other “similarly situated” cases.
Clarence Thomas, and the other Supremes who voted to overturn the nigh 50-year precedent of Roe v. Wade, clearly intimated that, “watch this space for further developments” regarding other rights that are not specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, which could be targeted for obliteration.
I would wonder and state that the following language could have been written by Clarence Thomas to his fellow brethren regarding how he and they would treat the still now-protected Loving v. Virginia case:
Dear Fellow Supremes:
“As all of you know, I caught a lucky break and married a white woman. I thought it best to marry white because it would further advance my career as a potential justice if the day ever came my way that I would be selected for the highest court in the land.
That day thankfully came when George Herbert Walker Bush used me to partially rehab his poor image with Black voters after he trashed Willie Horton in his presidential campaign ads. He thought that nominating a Negro for that vacant court slot would be helpful to the country and to the GOP.
My being seen with a white wife would also be invaluable currency with certain GOP white senators who would then see me as a “no threat Negro” to their agenda.
Of course, I gladly played that role and having a white woman by my side made it even more palatable. Needless to state, I could not have pulled this trick off with a Black woman, say an Anita Hill type, at my side. Wow! What a hearing that was! My desperate comment of me being a victim of a high-tech lynching caused enough white guilt in the Senate that I won the day, barely.
Thanks to Joe Biden (then head of the Senate Judiciary Committee) for running interference for me and not allowing Anita Hill’s two corroborating witnesses to testify!
As you know, in my dissent I intentionally left out mentioning what impact this Roe decision would have on the viability of Loving v. Virginia since our rationale in deciding overturning Roe v. Wade is the same exact rationale that would overturn the Loving case since there is no mention in the Constitution protecting the rights of Black folks and white folks to marry.
I benefitted from the Loving case, (as I also did from affirmation action programs) but I did not want to subject the Loving case to such judicial scrutiny as we did in overturning Roe v. Wade.
So, give a brotha’ a break and do not specifically mention Loving v. Virginia as possibly being on the court’s chopping block.
If the Loving case is overruled, that will not affect me and Ginni since we got married after Loving and as such, there is no retroactivity if and when Loving is overruled.
If the state courts must deal with the aftershocks of Loving being overruled, those states can make their own decisions about interracial marriage.
All I know is, I got my white wife when the getting was getting good, so let others fend for themselves if they want to marry, black or white!
If you are quizzed by the media as to why Loving should not remain as the law of the land, simply state that there is a “Clarence Thomas white wife” exception to the law on the rationale that Loving is different from the other substantive due process cases under possible review and repudiation.”
Your forever humble and smiling servant,
Clarence
P.S. Ginni also thanks you from the bottom of her rock-ribbed GOP heart.
Contact Lafe Tolliver at tolliver@juno.com