If there is one thing Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot seems to have made clear while overseeing one of the more dangerous cities in America, it’s that she cares little for the rule of law. Evidently, decorum ranked just as low when she offered choice words for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas over the weekend while speaking at a concert during the city’s “Pride Parade” festivities.
Lightfoot fancies herself a patriot for her outspoken stance on social justice causes and the woke ideologies du jour. She had said as much in the wake of the leak of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Now that the official ruling has come down and Roe v. Wade has been overturned, she told a crowd of cheering concert-goers, “F*ck Clarence Thomas!” for his concurring opinion on the ruling.
“If you read Clarence Thomas’ concurrence he said-” Lightfoot can be heard saying in a video before an audience member calls out to her.
LORI LIGHTFOOT: "F*ck Clarence Thomas"pic.twitter.com/Pq5yTMxaIZ
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 27, 2022
“Thank you!” the mayor replied to the person in the crowd before presumably echoing the unknown person’s sentiment. “F*ck Clarence Thomas!”
“He thinks we’re gonna stand idly by while they take our rights – our right to marry, our right to have children-” Lightfoot carried on as the clip ended. The brevity of the video and the interruption from the crowd prevented an opportunity to hear what of Thomas’ concurrence the mayor was planning on citing to support her case, but she had already demonstrated Friday after the ruling came down that her understanding was off the mark.
“We will not let you take away our rights under any circumstances,” she said of the ruling that affirmed each state is allowed to govern itself on the matter of abortion and was therefore taking nothing from her or her constituents.
“Come to Chicago,” she went on during the press conference and added, “We will protect you, we will make sure that your rights are respected. We will make sure that you get access to the health care you deserve.”
As to Thomas’ concurrence, there is no doubt that the openly gay mayor had taken offense to the suggestion that “all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” be reconsidered in future cases where appropriate.
Those rulings pertain to the “right to privacy,” right to “seek autonomy” in private relationships, and the right to same-sex marriage, respectively.
“As I have previously explained, ‘substantive due process’ is an oxymoron that ‘lack[s] any basis in the Constitution,” Thomas wrote, citing himself from a previous case. To him, the idea of “substantive due process” was theatrics where the law need only go through the motions to fulfill the responsibility.
As written in McDonald v. Chicago, Thomas again cited himself adding, “The notion that a constitutional provision that guarantees only ‘process’ before a person is deprived of life, liberty, or property,” as set forth in the Fifth Amendment, “could define the substance of those rights strains credulity for even the most casual user of words.”
Of course, progressives have shown time and again that their narrative hinges upon the flexibility of language like defining “what is a woman” or something even simpler such as “what the meaning of the word is is.”
Facts will not stand in the way of the feelings of Democrats, and they will use any means necessary to accomplish their goals while continuing the show trial of the Jan. 6 committee that, if equally applied, would be damning to entire swaths of their caucus.
Progressives have demonstrated their patience in eroding the framework of the Constitution, and Thomas is showing that he can be just as patient in shoring it up. He wrote of the aforementioned cases, “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”
It would not spell the end for any of the rights expressed in those cases as Thomas went on to note, “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,” and offered the 14th Amendment as an example.
He concluded, “in future cases, we should ‘follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away.’ Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.”
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- ‘Squad’ member Cori Bush skewered after likening herself to Rosa Parks: ‘Asinine and narcissistic’ - December 3, 2023
- Houston cop shot multiple times in ‘ambush-style attack’ and STILL neutralizes suspect - December 3, 2023
- Rivalry gone wrong: Dead longhorn found mutilated ahead of Big 12 championship game - December 3, 2023
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.