 So, I wanted to take some time to expand upon one of the more underrated tweets in my opinion that came following the news about Roe v. Wade being overturned. And this is a tweet from actor Samuel L. Jackson who took to Twitter to call out Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for not stating whether or not he believes the court should also revisit Loving v. Virginia. Now for those of you who don't know, Loving v. Virginia is the Supreme Court case that shrugged down bans on interracial marriages. This is a very important case. Now the reason why Clarence Thomas is being asked this question by Samuel L. Jackson is because in his concurring opinion to the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the Dobbs case, Clarence Thomas explicitly called for the court to revisit cases with regard to contraception, same-sex intimacy, marriage equality. So he actually name-dropped Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges. So he's saying the court should also look at these decisions because these two, like Roe, were wrongly decided. Now when Clarence Thomas says that we should revisit cases like Obergefell, he's not explicitly saying it's because he thinks that gay marriage is immoral and God doesn't want this to be a thing. He's saying that these were wrongly decided. As the Supreme Court Justice, you can't actually say we should rule one way or another based on your religious preference. You have to rule based on the Constitution. So Clarence Thomas is forced to make a constitutional argument and he's saying that we have to revisit these cases because they violate the Constitution. They were wrongly decided. But the reason why that doesn't make sense is because the cases like Obergefell v. Hodges, they used the same constitutional rationale as the case of Loving v. Virginia. In Loving, the justices held that bans on interracial marriages violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. And in Obergefell, the court also held that the 14th Amendment required states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In fact, in the Obergefell case, it cites Loving again and again and again. And the reason why they cite Loving is because that case makes it very clear that their right to marriage is fundamental to the U.S. Constitution and it cannot be denied on the basis of race or sex and sexual orientation. Therefore, it logically follows that if you believe that Obergefell was wrongly decided because the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not give same-sex couples the right to marry, then you also have to assume that that same 14th Amendment wouldn't give interracial couples the right to marry as well. But Thomas did not call for the court to revisit Loving v. Virginia. And the reason is because he himself is in an interracial marriage, as many of you have heard about. In fact, he's married to a demonic-possessed insurrectionist named Ginny Thomas. I believe it's pronounced Jenae Thomas. And they make a really cute couple. So I understand why he wouldn't want to have his own marriage overruled. But you have to understand this is the problem, right? He's right to not want to strike down interracial marriages. But he's applying a different standard to two different cases that have been decided using the same logic and that is inconsistent. He's inadvertently revealing that he is just basing his decision, his desire to overturn or revisit Obergefell to overturn it on his religious preference, not on the Constitution. Because if he was actually consistent, he would say we have to revisit all of these cases that used the 14th Amendment to drastically expand rights, but he's not doing that. And this is a problem. This is a problem that Samuel L. Jackson is pointing out. But to be fair, it's not just Clarence Thomas, who is a hypocrite here. It's all of the Supreme Court justices. But Clarence Thomas, he was a little bit too brazen. He called for the court to revisit several cases, but yet he's conspicuously leaving out another case that you'd think would be grouped in with these other cases that he wants the court to revisit. So the question is, does he even have a judicial philosophy that he adheres to or see just using his religion to interpret the Constitution? The answer is he actually does have a judicial philosophy. And that judicial philosophy is to own the libs. Now you might think that I'm being facetious, but literally, this is something that he stated a very long time ago. He said that his goal as a Supreme Court justice is to make liberals miserable and be on the court for as long as he possibly can. And that's perhaps the one area where Clarence Thomas has been consistent. As Insider explained, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told his law clerks he intended to serve on the highest court of the land to make the lives of liberals miserable according to a 1993 report from the New York Times. In a conversation with his law clerks two years following his confirmation, the New York Times reported Thomas expressed his desire to serve on the court until the year 2034. Quote, the liberals made my life miserable for 43 years. A former clerk remembered Thomas, who was 43 years old when confirmed saying, according to the New York Times, and I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years. And just to remind you, this spiteful, petty, vengeful individual isn't just some random adult. Like I wouldn't expect this sort of behavior of any adult, but this is a Supreme Court justice. And I'd argue that he's been pretty successful at not just making liberals miserable, but everyone in the country miserable because it doesn't matter what the state is. Most people do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Now, if you look at the public opinion polls regarding marriage equality, the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that marriage equality should remain the law of the land. But Clarence Thomas, he's not in favor of that. So part of his judicial philosophy certainly encompasses his religion, but on top of that, it's also a little bit of owning the libs as well. And it's not a stretch to say that because he quite literally has governed in that exact way. So when I tell you that the Supreme Court justices are just making shit up as they go along, they, you know, they issue out some reactionary ruling and then they ascribe some sort of judicial philosophy to it in order to make it seem more legitimate. But actually they don't really believe anything. They're just making it up. This is what I mean. This is the point that Samuel L. Jackson, I think is making here. Because if Clarence Thomas was genuinely interested in interpreting the Constitution in an objective way, he wouldn't just call for a Bergfell and Lawrence and Griswold to be overturned because he thinks that they inappropriately apply the 14th Amendment. He'd also call for loving the Virginia to be revisited as well. But Clarence Thomas actually did us all a favor by admitting that he is inconsistent here and he doesn't really care about anything other than his religion and his own the libs philosophy. So that's why that tweet from Samuel L. Jackson was really important. Not only because the celebrity has a huge platform and can expose the hypocrisy, but because what Samuel L. Jackson is doing here is opening the doors to a really important conversation that I want people to have, and that is the Supreme Court justices. They make shit up as they go along. Has there been Supreme Court justices in the past that have been fairly consistent? Sure. I mean, I disagree with a lot of what she had to say, but I think that Sandra Day O'Connor, for the most part, was trying her best to apply some sort of judicial philosophy. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, maybe you can argue that as well. Scalia disagree with him, but he was fairly consistent in his textualism. And I disagree with, you know, this interpretation of the Constitution, but he at least tried to remain consistent and said, yes, you can burn the flag. That's free speech. But individuals like Clarence Thomas would just pick and choose what they like and don't like and then apply some judicial rationale to it. And that's unacceptable. That's why the court is illegitimate. That's why Americans have no faith in this court. It's because of justices who have gone rogue and they're just doing what they want as opposed to interpreting the Constitution in any sort of objective manner. Do you enjoy watching independent news shows like the Humanist Report, the Rational National and the Majority Report, but oftentimes YouTube doesn't deliver our videos to your subscription box? Well, I've got a solution for you. It's called the Optout app available right now in the iOS app store coming soon to Android. Optout is an app made by and for progressives where they take all of the most popular independent news shows and they put them in one convenient location. You'll find all your favorites on there like the Humanist Report, the Rational National, the Majority Report and the app is updated multiple times per day, so your news feed is constantly up to date. If you enjoy watching independent media, this is the app to get downloaded today.