Skip to content

WATCH: Whoopi Goldberg Makes Lies So Disgusting about Clarence Thomas that Even Her Leftist Co-Hosts Call Her Out

Whoopi Goldberg, a vapid and radical (even compared to her leftist peers) co-host of the horrifically awful liberal echo chamber known as “The View,” decided to spew forth a bunch of lies as she made the assertion that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has called for bringing an end to constitutional protections of interracial marriage.

Ignored there is that Thomas’ own wife is white, so on that basis alone, he’s probably not for making interracial marriage illegal.

Despite that, as TheBlaze reports, Goldberg continues to insist that Thomas has “brought up” the idea of stripping people of the right to marry someone who is of a different race or ethnicity. Particularly, she’s claiming he did so in his concurring opinion for the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, a comment in which he was mainly attacking the way the tentacles of “due process” have spread to things that have nothing to do with due process.

Commenting on that during the show, Goldberg said:

“What the Democrats seem to be running on is also protecting everyone’s rights. Regardless, whoever you love or whoever you’re married to, if you’re married — I don’t know — but they’re trying to make sure that the rights you are so easily, you know, able to give away … we’re trying to hold on and say, actually you can’t do that.

“Especially for a lot of folks who are also married interracially, which is coming up, you know bobbing its ugly head around.”

At this point, fellow co-host Joy Behar interrupted and was amazingly the voice of reason in the ridiculous segment, noting that Thomas, “is not gonna move on that one” because of who he is married to.

“Well, let’s find out. He’s the one who sort of brought it up,” Goldberg responded.

“Well, he didn’t bring that one up,” Behar replied, but Goldberg went on to insist “yes he did!”

Will the Red Wave come crashing down on the Democrat's heads in November?(Required)
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Watch that miraculous occurrence of Behar, herself a far-left radical, being the voice of reason:

Adding more details on the squabble between the cohosts, the same Blaze article cited above reported that:

Sunny Hostin, a lawyer, went to Thomas’ concurring opinion for Dobbs to clear up what he actually said. The justice agreed with the majority’s argument that Roe was wrongly decided because the text of the Constitution is silent on abortion and the right is neither “deeply rooted” in the nation’s history nor an essential component of “ordered liberty.” But while the majority explicitly stated, “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Thomas would have gone further.

He wrote that the court should “in future cases … reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” The cases Thomas cited established a constitutional right to privacy that broadly protects contraception access, sodomy, and gay marriage, respectively.

Importantly, Thomas did not write that these cases were wrongly decided. He took issue with the legal principle of substantive due process, which has been used by courts to establish protections for rights that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Thomas called this principle “an oxymoron” that “lack[s] any basis in the Constitution,” and said the reasoning of the cited cases should be reconsidered using other legal principles.

Hostin didn’t bother to bring up Thomas’ argument concerning substantive due process; however, she did note that the justice did not suggest any sort of reconsideration for Loving v. Virginia, which is the landmark civil rights case that declared any laws banning interracial marriage to be unconstitutional.

Despite that fact, Goldberg persisted in her non-sensical lie about Thomas, saying

I’m telling you, when he spoke about all the things that could go, this was one of the things he brought up.”

After they returned from a commercial break, Goldberg actually doubled-down on ridiculous claims about Thomas. Watch that here:

“This is what Clarence said, he said is concurring opinion is ‘we should reconsider all of the court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold” … and then he went on to name them,” Goldberg continued. “When you say ‘all’, I think you’re talking about ‘all’ and you’re not playing.”