There are legitimate debates to be had over Supreme Court jurisprudence, in which reasonable, well-intentioned people on both sides of an issue disagree passionately about the justices’ decisions. And then there are political cheap shots that serve only to mislead the public for partisan gain. For an example of the latter, look no further than the overwrought reaction to Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, last week’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
Justice Thomas signed on to Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs, but in a solo concurrence he urges the court to reconsider prior rulings that rest on the same legal reasoning used to justify Roe. Asked about Justice Thomas’s concurrence on “CBS Mornings” Tuesday, Hillary Clinton never addressed the substance of his argument and instead resorted to pop psychoanalysis. “He’s been a person of grievance as long as I’ve known him—resentment, grievance, anger,” she told host Gayle King. Apparently, anyone who disagrees with Mrs. Clinton’s judicial philosophy needs therapy.
