The ViewWhoopi Goldberg’s co-host is known for having a puffy-puff-pass. On Wednesday, she hotboxed her dressing-room when she bizarrely claimed Justice Clarence Thomas was the U.S. Supreme Court’s leader in a case to overturn Loving v. Virginia and abolish interracial marriage (despite the fact he’s in an interracial marriage). She even suggested that former President Trump didn’t really nominate the three justices he put on the bench.
Goldberg’s lies about Thomas came as she sniped at Ohio Republican Congressman Jim Jordan, proclaiming, “what the Democrats seem to be running on is also protecting everyone’s rights regardless.” “Especially for a lot of folks who are also married interracially which is coming up, you know, bobbing its ugly head around; talking about moving that,”She added.
Co-host Joy Behar pipped up and noted that “Clarence Thomas is not going to move on that one because his wife is white.” This led to a back and forth where Goldberg insisted that her lie was the truth and seemed to convince Behar for a moment:
GOLDBERG: Well, let’s find out. He’s the one who sort of brought it up.
BEHAR
GOLDBERG : Yes, that was it.
BEHAR: Was he right?
GOLDBERG: Yes, he did. Yes, he did.
Former federal prosecutor and co-host Sunny Hostin appeared as a bizarre voice of reason in the situation and recalled that Thomas’s concurring opinion (which she failed to mention didn’t have any co-signers) “did not talk about Loving v. [Virginia].”
“No, but I’m telling you, when he spoke about all the things that could go, this was one of the things he brought up,”Goldberg misunderstoodly insists.
After coming back from a commercial break, Goldberg desperately read from Thomas’s opinion and twisted his words to double down on her ridiculous accusation:
Clarence stated the following when Clarence was discussing Loving v. Virginia. This is my first priority. He said his 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. When you say “all,” I think you’re talking — I think you’re talking about all of them and you’re not playing. Do you know what?
She did not attempt to clarify why Thomas wanted to end interracial marriages, while she was in the midst of her own thoughts. Does she think Thomas might be making an elaborate play for a divorce?
Just a minute later, Hostin began to complain about Trump being able to nominate three justices. But Goldberg intervened to tell Hostin that Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch never underwent the official nomination process.
“Well, it wasn’t even a nomination, really. They just put them through,”Sie affirmed. “They just kind of put them through and sat they there and said – and lied through their teeth.”Hostin tried rephrase Goldberg’s words as “They were rubber-stamped.”
Because of Olay’s lucrative sponsorships, these lies about Justice Clarence Thomas are possible. You can find their contact information here.
The transcript is below, click “expand” to read:
ABC’s The View
July 20, 2022
Eastern at 11:03:47(…)
WHOOPI Goldberg: Jim Jordan. I’m sorry that you don’t pay much attention, but what I can say is that the Democrats are running on protecting all rights. Whoever you love or whoever you’re married to, or if you’re married, I don’t know. However, they are trying to ensure that your rights, which you could easily give away, remain protected. We’re trying not to do this.
Particularly important for many people who are married interracially.
JOY BEAR: Clarence Thomas won’t move because his wife, Joy Behar is white.
GOLDBERG: Well, let’s find out. He’s the one who sort of brought it up.
BEHAR
GOLDBERG : Yes, that was it.
BEHAR: Was he right?
GOLDBEGR: Yes, he did. Yes, he did.
SUNNY HOTIN: He did not say anything in his concurring opinion which overturned federal abortion rights. However, he stated that similar cases must be reexamined. He stated: GriswoldYou should consider these things.
BEHAR: The question is, “What’s the answer?”
HOSTIN – Which is the right for contraception. He stated: Lawrence v. Texas should be reconsidered, the right to same-sex intimacy, and Oberefell – I think I pronounced that incorrectly –
[Collective attempts to pronounce “Obergefell”]
HOSTIN – Which gives you the right to a same-sex married life? However, he didn’t talk about Loving V. the United States [sic].
BEHAR: No, Be Loving he didn’t bring up.
SUNNY: This was an interracial union.
GOLDBERG : I don’t think so. But, I can tell you that this was something he mentioned when he talked about the possibilities. This topic was raised at the dinner table several weeks ago by you all.
(…)
11:15:55
GOLDBERG First, I’d like to go back and review what we discussed. Loving v. VirginiaClarence agreed. He said his 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. When you say “all,” I think you’re talking — I think you’re talking about all of them and you’re not playing. Do you know what?
(…)
Eastern at 11:19.54
HOSTIN: When you elect someone like Trump (two impeached and disgraced), you get to nominate three people — I believe it was three.
SARA HAINES – Three
HOSTIN: — Supreme Court justices, this is what you’re left with.
GOLDBERG [Interrupting]: It was not even a nomination. They simply put them through.
HOSTIN: The rubber stamp was applied.
GOLDBERG: They just kind of put them through and sat they there and said – and lied through their teeth.
(…)
About Post Author
