MSNBC’s Joy Reid Calls Justice Clarence Thomas “Uncle Clarence” in Disgusting Racial Slur

National   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Nov 4, 2020   |   10:36AM   |   Washington, DC

MSNBC host Joy Reid used a racial slur Wednesday night during election coverage on the liberal network against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, calling him “Uncle Clarence.”

“If somehow [the Trump campaign] manage to stumble into the Supreme Court, do any of you guys trust Uncle Clarence and Amy Coney Barrett and those guys to actually follow the letter of the law? No,” she said. “It is a completely politicized Supreme Court that you can’t just trust that they’re going to do the right thing.”

The slur is a reference to the term “Uncle Tom” that is often used to describe black people in a derogatory way as somehow supposedly kowtowing to whites instead of standing up for the black community. It is often applied to pro-life blacks or black conservatives because they don’t conform to the way the liberal, pro-abortion establishment says they’re supposed to think.

Follow on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.

Justice Thomas has long been on the pro-life side and believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. Over the years, Justice Clarence Thomas has become the most vocal Supreme Court member to remind his fellow jurists that there is no right to abortion in the Constitution.

Earlier this year, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “Today a majority of the Court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction.”

“Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled,” he added, saying that the high court has “neither jurisdiction nor constitutional authority to declare Louisiana’s duly enacted law unconstitutional.”

Thomas’ dissent makes it clear that the abortion activists who brought the lawsuit didn’t even have standing to bring it, since petitioners who file lawsuits are supposed to bring such suits on their own behalf concerning their own abrogated rights or grievances, not on behalf of others.

Thomas made that problem clear: “As is often the case with legal challenges to abortion regulations, this suit was brought by abortionists and abortion clinics. Their sole claim before this Court is that Louisiana’s law violates the purported substantive due process right of a woman to abort her unborn child. But they concede that this right does not belong to them, and they seek to vindicate no private rights of their own. Under a proper understanding of Article III, these plaintiffs lack standing to invoke our jurisdiction.”

The venerable Supreme Court jurist then made it crystal clear that there is no right to abortion in the Constitution: “Those decisions created the right to abortion out of whole cloth, without a shred of support from the Constitution’s text. Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled.”