Kamala Harris meets White House adversary to criticize Clarence Thomas

Vice President Kamala Harris slammed the Supreme Court and Justice Clarence Thomas over recent decisions, decrying the high court as “an activist court.”

Harris slammed the Supreme Court in an interview with the New York Times published on Thursday, pointing to the 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, as she and President Joe Biden campaign for another term with abortion as a key topic.

“This court has shown itself to be an activist court,” Harris said. “I worry about fundamental freedoms across the board.”

She did not offer specific decisions she feared could be reversed, claiming she did not want to sound “alarmist,” but said that “this court has made it very clear that they are willing to undo recognized rights.”

Harris pointed to Thomas’s concurrence in the Dobbs decision, in which he pointed to other decisions by the high court in which he believes justices went beyond the Constitution to establish alleged rights.

“You could even look at Clarence Thomas saying a lot of the quiet part out loud,” Harris said. “Just look at what he said and then maybe that gives us some indication. Just look at one of the justices to see where they might go next.”

The Biden-Harris campaign has regularly criticized the Supreme Court, specifically for its decision in Dobbs, in which abortion law was returned to the states. Abortion is a leading topic the campaign has used to woo voters.

The vice president’s interview with the New York Times comes as Biden reportedly has a frosty relationship with the outlet over his lack of sit-down interviews during his tenure in the White House.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Biden has appeared on several less traditional mediums for interviews, including Late Night with Seth Meyers and The Howard Stern Show.

The New York Times has called on the president to sit down with an establishment outlet, such as itself, the Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal, as it argues that “avoiding interviews and questions from major news organizations doesn’t just undermine an important norm, it also establishes a dangerous precedent that future presidents can use to avoid scrutiny and accountability.”