Republican Senator questions Loving vs Virginia

Page 1 of 2 [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

roronoa79
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 964
Location: Indiana

16 May 2022, 9:30 pm

Mike Braun, a Republican senator from my home state of Indiana, suggested that the Supreme Court infringed on states' rights in its decision in the case of Loving vs. Virginia, which ruled that state laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional.

I wish I could say I was surprised.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/22/braun-supreme-court-interracial-marriage/

Quote:
Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) said Tuesday that he would be open to the Supreme Court overturning its 1967 ruling that legalized interracial marriage nationwide to allow states to independently decide the issue.

Braun — who made the comments during a conference call in which he discussed the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court — also said he’d welcome the rescinding of several key decisions made by the court in the past 70 years to pass the power to the states.

His remarks were first reported by local outlets NWI.com and WFYI Indianapolis.

Critical of activism from the bench, Braun cited a series of landmark decisions made by the court, including Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion, and Loving v. Virginia, which legalized interracial marriage.

When asked by a reporter whether he would consider the Supreme Court potentially striking down Roe this year to be “judicial activism,” Braun said he thought what justices did in 1973 to pass Roe was “judicial activism.”

“That issue should have never been federalized, [it was] way out of sync I think with the contour of America then,” he said. “One side of the aisle wants to homogenize [issues] federally, [and that] is not the right way to do it.”

Individual states, he said, should be able to weigh in on these issues “through their own legislation, through their own court systems.”

The same reporter asked Braun whether he would apply the same judgment to Loving, and Braun said “yes.”

“I think that that’s something that if you’re not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you’re not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too,” he said. “I think that’s hypocritical.”

The reporter asked whether Braun would say the same about Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court decision that a state’s ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy.

“You can list a whole host of issues,” Braun said. “When it comes down to whatever they are, I’m going to say that they’re not going to all make you happy within a given state, but that we’re better off having states manifest their points of view rather than homogenizing it across the country, as Roe v. Wade did.”

In a statement to The Washington Post after the conference call, Braun said he “misunderstood” the reporter’s questions on Loving and stressed that he opposes racism.

“I misunderstood a line of questioning that ended up being about interracial marriage,” Braun said. “Let me be clear on that issue — there is no question the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race, that is not something that is even up for debate, and I condemn racism in any form, at all levels and by any states, entities, or individuals.”

Braun did not comment on whether he also misunderstood the line of questioning on Roe or Griswold.

Braun said that while Jackson seems qualified for a seat on the court, he said he expects her not to be an “activist” during her tenure.

“Stick with interpreting the law,” Braun said, according to WFYI. “Don’t legislate from the bench.”

As the Senate weighs Jackson’s nomination, some of Braun’s fellow Senate Republicans have questioned landmark Supreme Court decisions.

On Monday, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), during her questioning of Jackson, said she opposes Griswold, calling the decision “constitutionally unsound.”

Similarly, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) questioned Jackson on Tuesday on the court’s authority in Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that legalized marriage equality — which he called an “edict.”

“When the Supreme Court decides that something that is not even in the Constitution is a fundamental right and no state can pass any law that conflicts with the Supreme Court’s edict, particularly in an area where people have sincerely held religious beliefs, doesn’t that necessarily create a conflict between what people may believe as a matter of their religious doctrine or faith and what the federal government says is the law of the land?” Cornyn asked Jackson.

Jackson said that “is the nature of a right.”

“When there is a right, it means that there are limitations on regulation, even if people are regulating pursuant to their sincerely held religious beliefs,” Jackson said.


_________________
Diagnoses: AS, Depression, General & Social Anxiety
I guess I just wasn't made for these times.
- Brian Wilson

Δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν
Those with power do what their power permits, while the weak have no choice but to accept it.

- Thucydides


Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 43,755
Location: Abbottistan

17 May 2022, 2:03 am

"If it was illegal in the 1950s, it should be illegal now"

-- Most conservatives


_________________
AOC 2024!


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 110,013
Location: the island of defective toy santas

24 May 2022, 9:32 pm

"If it was considered ok in feudal times, it should be the same way today." [most amuuurican conservatives]



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,731

25 May 2022, 1:34 am

One of strongest proponents of anti-miscegenation laws who also opposed Loving Vs Virginia had a love child with a black woman
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... s-daughter

This republican senator needs a psychiatric evaluation.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 110,013
Location: the island of defective toy santas

25 May 2022, 2:06 am

cyberdad wrote:
One of strongest proponents of anti-miscegenation laws who also opposed Loving Vs Virginia had a love child with a black woman
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... s-daughter

This republican senator needs a psychiatric evaluation.

i believe satan is up to the task.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,731

25 May 2022, 2:10 am

auntblabby wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
One of strongest proponents of anti-miscegenation laws who also opposed Loving Vs Virginia had a love child with a black woman
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... s-daughter

This republican senator needs a psychiatric evaluation.

i believe satan is up to the task.


I am sure this senator is a church going god fearing man :roll:



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 110,013
Location: the island of defective toy santas

25 May 2022, 2:11 am

cyberdad wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
One of strongest proponents of anti-miscegenation laws who also opposed Loving Vs Virginia had a love child with a black woman
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... s-daughter

This republican senator needs a psychiatric evaluation.

i believe satan is up to the task.


I am sure this senator is a church going god fearing man :roll:

surrounded by his fellow sociopaths. churches are hospitals for sinners, you know ;)



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,731

25 May 2022, 2:40 am

auntblabby wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
One of strongest proponents of anti-miscegenation laws who also opposed Loving Vs Virginia had a love child with a black woman
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... s-daughter

This republican senator needs a psychiatric evaluation.

i believe satan is up to the task.


I am sure this senator is a church going god fearing man :roll:

surrounded by his fellow sociopaths. churches are hospitals for sinners, you know ;)


The perils of blind faith



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 43,755
Location: Abbottistan

25 May 2022, 3:50 am

cyberdad wrote:
One of strongest proponents of anti-miscegenation laws who also opposed Loving Vs Virginia had a love child with a black woman
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... s-daughter

This republican senator needs a psychiatric evaluation.


We've known about Strom Thurmond's love child for years.

The Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings affair is an interesting story.


_________________
AOC 2024!


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,731

25 May 2022, 5:10 pm

Tim_Tex wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
One of strongest proponents of anti-miscegenation laws who also opposed Loving Vs Virginia had a love child with a black woman
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... s-daughter

This republican senator needs a psychiatric evaluation.


We've known about Strom Thurmond's love child for years.

The Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings affair is an interesting story.


I was fascinated back in the 1990s when DNA testing was first emerging as a way of tracing family lineage the absolute outrage from white Jefferson descendants (who had a whites only association) that black people were descended from Jefferson. It caused quite a ruckus and from I understand the so called "Jefferson society" still does not permit black jefferson descendants to join their association in 2022 despite the evidence being overwhelming that Sally-Hemmings children were descended from this founding father.

The practice at that time was when slaves were purchased was that young pretty female slaves were put in the "masters house". I am sure George Washington had a few kids with slaves but history will conceal the reputation of such men.



adoylelb90815
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2015
Age: 46
Posts: 423
Location: California

25 May 2022, 11:33 pm

I figured this was going to happen if Roe v Wade is overturned, other things like this will be overturned. Even though it would mean that Clarence Thomas's marriage would once again be illegal.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 110,013
Location: the island of defective toy santas

26 May 2022, 3:57 pm

adoylelb90815 wrote:
I figured this was going to happen if Roe v Wade is overturned, other things like this will be overturned. Even though it would mean that Clarence Thomas's marriage would once again be illegal.

laws don't apply to the GOP.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,731

26 May 2022, 4:30 pm

auntblabby wrote:
adoylelb90815 wrote:
I figured this was going to happen if Roe v Wade is overturned, other things like this will be overturned. Even though it would mean that Clarence Thomas's marriage would once again be illegal.

laws don't apply to the GOP.


The original constitution is adhered to ferociously by the GOP because (let's face it) it was written to protect the interests of old conservative white men who owned slaves and plantations (Washington and Jefferson and their associates).



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 55,569
Location: Stendec

26 May 2022, 4:52 pm

According to Wikipedia: "By 2010 15.1% of all new marriages in the United States were mixed race."

That's like 3 out of every 20.

It looks like my Philippine wife and I decided just in time to retire to her homeland.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 55,569
Location: Stendec

26 May 2022, 4:53 pm

cyberdad wrote:
The original constitution is adhered to ferociously by the GOP because it was written to protect the interests of old conservative white men who owned slaves and plantations.
Do not forget that women of that time had no right to vote or own real estate, either.  Only white protestant men were allowed these rights, and the very definition of "Men" was left up to the individual states (as in, "All men are created equal").



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,731

26 May 2022, 11:35 pm

Fnord wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
The original constitution is adhered to ferociously by the GOP because it was written to protect the interests of old conservative white men who owned slaves and plantations.
Do not forget that women of that time had no right to vote or own real estate, either.  Only white protestant men were allowed these rights, and the very definition of "Men" was left up to the individual states (as in, "All men are created equal").


Yes, it would be fair to say the original US constitution has been amended on multiple occasions to bring it up to date with modern times which makes the GOP and Libertarian mantra that one needs to go back to the original constitution when the ink wasn't even dry somewhat demented.