A Principled Defense of Justice Clarence Thomas
Truth is a letter from courage. — Zora Neale Hurston
The recent decision by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), which overturned abortion rights provided by Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), has been a source of concern and controversy. The abortion debate understandably arouses passions as people on both sides of the issue feel as though they are the rightful occupants of the moral high ground, and they fail to see the other side as anything but deeply evil. Those who are resolutely against abortion believe in the sanctity of life and that terminating life on the basis of personal expediency is the height of self-centeredness and rank immorality. Those who are supportive of abortion rights believe that liberty fundamentally entails having agency over one's body and reproductive system, which means not being forced by an intrusive government to carry unwanted—or, in some instances, dangerous— pregnancies to term.
That Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion would be surprising to those unfamiliar with the ruling, given the fact that the attention, and ire, from those who support abortion rights has been almost singularly focused on Justice Clarence Thomas. It would also surprise someone unfamiliar with the Supreme Court that a woman, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was among the votes for overturning Roe. Some will argue Justice Thomas is receiving attention particularly because, in a separate concurrence, he made the argument that the Supreme Court ought to further review cases that granted substantive due process rights such as Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) granting contraception, sodomy, and same-sex marriage rights respectively. However, Justice Thomas' separate concurrence should not be a reason to single out the only black man on the Supreme Court for anathematization. During her visit to CBS Mornings with Gayle King, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the comment that Justice Thomas has been a person of “resentment, grievance, [and] anger for as long as [she] has known him.” This comment by Hillary Clinton unmistakably plays into racist ideas about black men.
Aside from Clinton's comment being refuted by those who actually interact with Justice Thomas on a regular basis, most notably his liberal colleague on the Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Clinton's comment about Justice Thomas uses the “angry black man” trope. Rather than simply disagreeing with his ideas, which she is very much entitled to do, Clinton decided to create a scary image of Justice Thomas for her followers. This is not the first time that Hillary Clinton has been accused of using dehumanizing rhetoric against black people. During her presidential bid in 2016, Clinton came under fire for her past use of the term "superpredators" to refer to young black people who engaged in juvenile delinquency. This is a term that was coined by the political scientist John J. DiIulio Jr. Her husband, former president Bill Clinton, defended her by saying that she used the term because she deeply cared about black lives being extirpated by these so-called “superpredators.” That Hillary Clinton has not learned her lesson about the pitfalls of leaning into reprehensible racial tropes about black people is telling, or perhaps she feels that Justice Thomas is a suitable target, since racialized attacks on him are unlikely to inspire outrage among black leftist activists.
Hillary Clinton is following in the footsteps of purportedly progressive white feminists before her in her use of anti-blackness for political goals. Throughout American history, black men have been singled out and received racialized invective for the purpose of advancing women's rights. One only needs to look back at the racism promoted by Frances E. Willard, a prominent figure in the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). She used rhetoric invoking the fantastically racist imagery of alcoholic black male rapists to advance her political goals. Ida B. Wells correctly accused her of using language that encouraged lynching (see Parker, 2008). While Clinton’s comments are not as extreme as the vile racism of Willard, they serve the same purpose: using a black man as a political symbol of hate and fear.
It is interesting that there was much more black outrage about Clinton's remark about superpredators than her racist imagery about the only black man sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States. Perhaps this is because there are some who do not consider Justice Thomas to be "kinfolk." While Justice Thomas' views may not be shared by the majority of Black Twitter, allowing him to be subjected to racist abuse or the subject of racist tropes without pushback is unconscionable. Moreover, people seem to conveniently forget that the person who popularized the phrase, "All my skinfolk ain't my kinfolk" is Zora Neale Hurston, a black conservative writer who criticized the welfare state and promoted individualism. Surely, she would not support the contemporary use of the phrase as a way to suggest that black people who are not sufficiently left-wing are not "kinfolk." Undoubtedly, if Hurston were alive today, cretinous social media zealots would attempt to cancel her, as they would a whole host of influential black thinkers. The idea that being slightly to the right of Antonio Gramsci disqualifies one from authentic blackness is an imbecilic modern standard.
Black people on the left who ignore racism as long as it is directed at the “correct” targets lose all moral standing to criticize racism on the right. If young black juvenile delinquents deserve defense from dehumanizing rhetoric, so does the only black man sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States, irrespective of his politics. It is interesting that some people think racism is only fit to be addressed when it can be used as a convenient cudgel against political opponents. When white liberals engage in racism against black people deemed not to be "kinfolk" by Black Twitter, some people think this racism is permissible. Giving out passes for people to be racist on the basis of political affiliation is the kind of hypocrisy that allows anti-blackness to proliferate.
Justice Clarence Thomas has ideas that many deem controversial, and thus his ideas can and should be challenged by those who disagree. However, he ought to be afforded the respect of having his ideas challenged without his blackness being attacked. Political debate is necessary and important, but racism can never be considered a coherent substitute to legitimate political discourse, and it is a moral disgrace when racist imagery is utilized for the furtherance of political goals.