Damn fair question, if he wants to use the same rationale of "Substantive Due Process" to change all of these laws like Roe v Wade, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell, then let's throw in Loving v Virginia since it was the basis for this case as well.  

Samuel L. Jackson derisively calls SCOTUS justice 'Uncle Clarence' and asks him how he feels about overturning Loving v. Virginia - the 1967 ruling that declared state bans on interracial marriage are unconstitutional

• Samuel L Jackson dubbed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas 'Uncle Clarence' after he defended the decision to overturn Roe v Wade
• The term is an apparent reference to the Uncle Tom character in abolitionist Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel, a subservient slave
• The Marvel Cinematic Universe actor asked the justice how he is feeling about the Loving v Virginia decision that allows for interracial marriage
• Thomas, 74, is in an interracial marriage with his wife, Virginia
• But he called for his colleagues to 'reconsider' other landmark Supreme Court cases that use the same rationale as the Loving and the Roe case

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10955253/Samuel-L-Jackson-takes-aim-SCOTUS-calls-Justice-Thomas-Uncle-Clarence.html

 

Jetsheep,

Again you show your latent racism!

"Uncle Clarence"-- Really...!!!

as you may remember 

Harriets novel (Uncle Tom) was used by civil war abolishionidts  to illustrate the evil of slavery.

And today "Uncle zclarence" is a Supreme Court Justice! 

as if because he's black he can't be a constitutionalist,

a legal scholar who believes in "Natural" ( not "positive" law. 

I remember when he was appointed.

.Creepy Joe was his for most adversary

Creepy Joe couldn't stand the fact that Natural law

requires s belief in moral absolutes found in himan nature

derived, presumably, from the moral absolutes of the Creator ( God).

No, you and Creepy Joe seem to think 

"Uncle Clarence" needs stay on your Lib plantation and " know his place"

Heres the thing about "Loving v Virginia"

if that Supreme Court decision were ever remanded to the states today

i believe there wouldn't be a single state legislature that would side with "old" Virginia.

Bit what scares you is 

the same might not be said today about 

"Gay marriage"

which, following

stare decisis

and "precident" 

especially since you crazy Libs can't even define 

"gender"

but if I'm wrong, and some states were to outlaw interracial marriage

at least we'd know where all the racists lived, now wouldn't we?

and if they did the same with gay marriage

we would know where the homophobes were, wouldn't we? 

Same thing with abortion. 

What apparently scares the hell outta your

evil  racist, eugenic, Lib masters

is the idea ( and posdible truth

the vast majority of Americans today don't support abortion in

principle. on moral grounds. 

and at least a majority of states would severely limit its legal boundries
well beyond what they are today. (Even in Communist China! ) 

you crazy leftists have supported partial birth, late term abortion!

and even post partum infanticide!

and Democrats supported a bill that wantEd to eliminate conscientious objection for medical practitioners!

(like the cake baker who wouldn't bake a gay wedding cake!) 

or more recently,

the unconstitutional mask and vaccine mandates Imposed by your fraudulent president! 

You are truly a sheep, jetsheep.

and soon I think you'll see

you are living in "Lib wonderland"

and you don't look as good as Alice below, at the Jan 6 hearings.. ( lol ) 

( PS..that dress you wear makes your ass look fat!)

useful idiot! 

Are you saying Thomas will skip the Loving case but visit the others, how could that be fair?

No, 

Im saying if the merits of these cases are decided at the state level

even if Judge Thomas deccided, L vs V  was judicial overreach

the state and even federal legislatures could not and would never support 

a return to old Virginia's "anti-misegenation laws"

Why?

Because,

following the doctrine of "Stare decisis"

the states have --already--established legal precidents by issuing 

marriage licenses to interracial married couples. (By the millions) 

..please define a "racial purity" that applies!

Ridiculous! ("one drop of [xxx] blood?!) 

The same might also hold true concerning gay marriage 

the states have alresdy recognized and issued gay marriage licenses 

So they can't simply --retroactively-- disolve such unions!

That said, 

No such "president"  exists for defining or legalizing "abortion" nation-wide

it is well within the rights of state legislatures to revise or limit 

their own legal definition of "ABORTION"

they already have established different Legal limits and definitions

within the broad and undefined "Rights" and "semantic argurneys" that originally establishEd legal abortion at the federal level. by judicial  fiat! (Roe vs Wade) 

You Lib tools --love -- the Supreme Court when they

"legislate from the bench"

But according to the "Bill of Rights"

thats not their job!

Useful Idiot! 

But he's still fixated on underage overdeveloped young girls.

Pooty knows that Lewis Carroll's 'Alice' was a character presented as being somewhere between 6 1/2 and 10 years of age. And yet he presents her ("Alice") as a very well developed, buxom young woman dressed for a night's work on the corner.