Justice Thomas playing politics with basic rights

Dear Editor,

While it's dicey for a non-lawyer such as myself to comment on the intricacies of Supreme Court cases, some correction is needed when misstatements are made in letters to the editor. A recent letter suggested that the “liberty” provision of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment serves as the basis for Roe vs. Wade. Not true. Roe vs. Wade found that the 14th Amendment provides a right to privacy (between patient and doctor in this case) that protects a pregnant woman's right to an abortion.

Interestingly, some justices, most notably Ruth Bader Ginsburg, felt the nexus of the case should have been decided on the basis of due process and not privacy. The outcome was correct, but not the rationale. The notion of a “liberty” provision deciding the case is not part of the record.

In any case, Justice Clarence Thomas is decidedly wrongheaded in this case, both on the abortion question and other decisions he is clearly looking to overrule. Whether based on due process or privacy, he is playing politics with basic rights. Hillary Clinton probably hit the nail on the head when she recently said that she knew Thomas from days at Yale Law and believed him to be a “person of grievance,” full of “resentment” and “anger.” Great. We have on the court an “aggrieved” person, an accused rapist, a handmaid of God and a man who I look at as “illegitimate” given his 9-month delayed nomination from March of 2016 till January of 2017, due to Mitch McConnell's slow walk of Obama's nominee. Mitch, of course, conveniently forgot to slow-walk the nomination and confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in October of 2020, before the election of a president who won both the electoral and popular votes. It's worse than sad — it's shameful.

Rick Jones Kerhonkson, N.Y.