What does it say that conspicuous by its absence in rulings that Uncle Clarence would reconsider is Loving vs. Virginia establishing the right to interracial marriage.
Of course, it doesn't make a difference to you what Clarence Thomas actually thinks. It's what *he is* that matters. (You know...like ALL THOSE people.)
What does it say that conspicuous by its absence in rulings that Uncle Clarence would reconsider is Loving vs. Virginia establishing the right to interracial marriage.
Is that conspicuous? Despite his explanation of it in hist dissent in Obergfell? (See https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/14-556.pdf).
Of course, it doesn't make a difference to you what Clarence Thomas actually thinks. It's what *he is* that matters. (You know...like ALL THOSE people.)
What Uncle Clarence thinks is that the whole fucking world revolves around Uncle Clarence.