Whoopi Goldberg loses her mind over Roe v Wade, claims the court might come for black people…

The View, which is responsible for so much misinformation these days, is doing it again.

Whoopi Goldberg lost it today over the Roe v Wade decision, claiming that the Supreme Court might come for black people because they aren’t in the Constitution…or something:

This quarter of a person nonsense that Whoopi is spewing wasn’t what she suggested. In fact, blacks were deemed three-fifths of a person only for the reason of determining state representation in the House of Representatives. We all know the bigger the population of a state, the more representatives a state gets. But white slave owners in southern states wanted to count slaves as an equal person because they wanted to use them to get more reps and thus become more powerful in the House. In a compromise, it was decided that slaves would only count as three fifths of a person to prevent the southern states from becoming too powerful.



Also, I’ll just add that this Hobbs decision nixing Roe v Wade wasn’t about religion as Whoopi suggests. No, it was about the Constitution itself not conferring the right of abortion. Which just shows the idiocy of Whoopi no understanding this.

Speaking of idiots, here’s another for you:

 
Regarding all the contempt for Clarence Thomas from left, this is what he said in his concurring opinion:

As I have previously explained, “substantive due process” is an oxymoron that “lack[s] any basis in the Constitution. The notion that a constitutional provision that guarantees only ‘process’ before a person is deprived of life, liberty, or property could define the substance of those rights strains credulity for even the most casual user of words. The resolution of this case is thus straightforward. Because the Due Process Clause does not secure any substantive rights, it does not secure a right to abortion.

The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised. Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”.

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous, we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents. 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.

Thomas wasn’t specifically discussing the substance of these cases, but rather the false basis upon which they were decided and said he would like the court to revisit these cases to correct that error.

But the way these morons like Whoopi and the Chicago mayor are acting, you’d think he came out and announced he wanted the court to take away birth control, sex and gay marriage. But that’s not what he said at all. He just wants to right a wrong, just like they did with the original decision behind Roe v Wade.

These are nothing but a bunch of fools fear mongering and spreading misinformation. But it’s leftist misinformation, so nobody will care.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.