Burgess Owens Skewers the WaPo for Use of 'on Brand... Racist Stereotype' on Clarence Thomas

Burgess Owens Skewers the WaPo for Use of 'on Brand... Racist Stereotype' on Clarence Thomas
AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

Like any other public figure whether they be a politician or an outspoken CEO of a large corporation, members of the judiciary all the way up to the Supreme Court should not be treated as sacrosanct and off-limits for criticism. Judges make decisions every single day that often impact the lives of far more people than just those who are sitting in the courtroom awaiting a judicial ruling.

Because of that as well as the political nature of elections and nominations of judges to the various courts in this country, their judicial philosophy can and should be debated in the public arena, pros and cons, perceived biases, their well-funded advocates, and all that.

But there’s a huge difference between legitimate scrutiny of a member of the court versus leaning into despicable and dated racial/gender stereotypes as a basis for one’s “argument” for or against one, and the Washington Post definitely crossed the line into the latter in a Wednesday report in which they all but used the term “Uncle Tom” to describe Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

In essence, the article was a puff piece about House Majority Whip Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) and how he has become President Biden’s go-to voice on possible Supreme Court nominees to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer. But several paragraphs into their original “report” (archived here), here’s how the WaPo describes Thomas’ judicial point of view (bolded emphasis added):

“Nobody that I’m aware of feels that opposing Clyburn’s nomination would be the wise thing to do,” [Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.)] said. “If you know that a person has been vetted by Jim Clyburn, you know that person won’t go to the court and end up being a Clarence Thomas,” referring to the Black justice whose rulings often resemble the political thinking of White conservatives.

Keep in mind that this wasn’t an opinion piece nor an editorial. This was ostensibly a “straight news” report that strongly insinuated that a black conservative Justice was a traitor to his race.

Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah) caught wind of the story and went off, pointing out that the paper was “staying on brand with racist stereotypes”:

Owens is, of course, right. This isn’t a one-off for the Washington Post. It’s something they routinely do to black conservatives or any other black person who dares to have a different point of view than Democrats.

One example that instantly comes to mind was the insane “fact check” they did of Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) last year where Glenn Kessler actually tried to whitesplain and downplay inspiring stories Scott had told about his ancestors and how his family went from “cotton to Congress in one lifetime”:

For what it’s worth, the paper issued a “clarification” on their story in the aftermath of all the criticism they received and took out the most offensive part:

A previous version of this story imprecisely referred to Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinions as often reflecting the thinking of White conservatives, rather than conservatives broadly. That reference has been removed.

While people understandably get outraged when they see stuff like this, one way to look at it is to be thankful they said the quiet part out loud. Sounds weird, but when news outlets do this sort of thing where they suggest people should only think one way based on their physical characteristics, they’re exposing themselves as “woke” frauds, reminding us all over again of who they really are in the process.

Flashback: Classic ‘Never Bend a Knee’ Moment From Clarence Thomas’ SCOTUS Hearing Resurfaces Just When We Need It

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Video