Due to protests over his concurring opinion overturning Roe v Wade, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has decided not to teach at the George Washington University Law School. It’s now practically difficult for pregnant women in the 25 states with partial or full abortion bans to get an abortion thanks to a conservative majority that reversed the 1973 rule in late June.
You may also read:-
- Justice Thomas No Longer Teaches At Gwu Because Of Roe
- Uvalde Robb Elementary Principal Mandy Gutierrez
74-year-old Justice Clarence Thomas had been scheduled to teach a lecture with US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces judge Gregory Maggs this fall at a private legal school in Washington, DC. According to a statement from GW Law, “Justice Thomas notified GW Law that he is unavailable to co-teach a constitutional law class this fall.” As for whether or not the judge would return in the future, the university said it didn’t “have additional information to give”.
In his 2021 financial statement, Justice Thomas disclosed a $10,000 (£8,225) salary from his teaching position at the University of Virginia Law School. Thousands of students had signed an online petition demanding the university to sever relations with Justice Thomas, a demand that officials have refused to heed following the June ruling. As of Wednesday afternoon, the petition had garnered more than 11,000 signatures.
You may also read:-
- Lawn Boy Controversy: What’s It Like To Be Banned? We Interviewed The Author Of A Controversial Book
- Democratic Candidate Alex Lasry Ends US Senate Campaign In Wisconsin
Law dean Dayna Bowen and university provost Christopher Bracey When asked about the firing of Justice Thomas, Matthew reportedly responded that the institution and its law school had no interest in firing him. Justice Thomas enjoys the same academic liberties as the rest of the faculty, according to an email sent in June. Over one million people have signed an online petition calling for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Americans were further offended by his concurrence opinion, which stated that the court “should review all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold,” “Lawrence,” and “Obergefell.” Cases in question include the right to privacy, due process, and equal protection, such as same-sex marriage, in the United States.