No, it's because Loving v. Virginia has a clear textual basis in the 14th amendment's Equal Protection Clause, while Roe and Griswold are divined from "penumbras" and "emanations" using the hook of the 14th amendment's Due Process Clause. Loving v. Virginia relied on both bases, but the Equal Protection rationale would have been adequate standing alone.

If Slaughterhouse is reopened, do you think the right will see the attempt to resurrect privileges or immunities (as per RBG) and raise (counter) with the holding against birthright citizenship in it?

The equal protection clause is different from the due process clause, and Thomas can easily split his decision over that. As an originalist too, he would likely ask if the 14th amendment was meant to protect the rights of black people to at the time, and it was clearly meant to protect the rights of recently freed slaves so it isn’t much of a stretch, you can basically trip into this interpretation.

So I think he would be wholly unbothered making that distinction, knowing that _his_ rights are protected under a different clause. I guess it does show some of the fragility of judicial precedent, you could imagine an even more conservative justice who was not Thomas restricting the interpretation of this clause to mean only the narrow rights the majority of people in 1868 would have liked and not include miscegenation through some horribly tortured logic. But Thomas can draw the line before that and after himself.

Keep in mind in 1992 when WV amended its state constitution to remove the miscegenation prohibition 25% wanted to keep it.

The 14 amendment was also used as justification for granting "personhood" to corporations. Not likely that this court would consider reversing this.

> I wonder if that's because Clarence and Ginni Thomas have been committing miscegenation for years?

Please, I'm eating. Besides, there's no evidence of this.

Do you mean no evidence of his motivation, or no evidence that they've been committing miscegenation?

The latter, but if I'm wrong please don't link to it.

You have problems eating thinking of "`races` mixing" ? What about this: the entire humanity is, that is all specimen, including yourself, is the outcome of in and outbreeding between countless ethnies, groups of different skin colors, cultures and even religion/folklore followers.

If you have a digesting problem with this, we may just call it nature but your comment is what could put many not at ease. That being said, I would at least guess we agree on the ruling that it gets us closer to nature and some commonly accepted ethic with regards to human life and procreation.

I support your position, but I'm pretty sure he was cracking a tasteless joke at the thought of the specific people of Clarence and Ginni getting it on rather than all people of mixed races.

It's a reddit-level comment that doesn't add anything to the discussion.

> It's a reddit-level comment that doesn't add anything to the discussion.

That still makes it a rhetorical step up from Thomas's concurrence.

I think he meant particularly Ginny and Clarence Thomas, not people of different races in general.

I'll compromise. Justices can miscegenate or plot to overthrow an election, but not both.