Sen. Braun open to U.S. Supreme Court rescinding ruling that legalized interracial marriage

[Somerville]

Certainly looks like Senator Braun (R-IN), believes states should allow discrimination against certain individuals and prohibition of various legal practices. What this would mean for many Americans is being banned from traveling across the nation, as their legal status in one state would be considered illegal in other states and therefore subject such persons to arrest or imposition of fines.

Sen. Braun open to U.S. Supreme Court rescinding ruling that legalized interracial marriage​

U.S. Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., would welcome the U.S. Supreme Court rescinding its 1967 ruling that legalized interracial marriage nationwide in favor of allowing each of the 50 states to decide such issues on its own.
Speaking Tuesday on a conference call with Indiana reporters, the Hoosier senator unambiguously declared his belief that many of the high court's key civil rights decisions of the past 70 years were wrongly decided and an improper usurpation of states' rights.
Braun initially limited his claim to the national right to abortion established by the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision he hopes the current, more conservative, Supreme Court will overturn in coming months when it rules in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

But, when asked by The Times, Braun admitted there are many Supreme Court decisions he believes improperly established federal rights that would be better handled on a state-by-state basis, including Loving v. Virginia that legalized interracial marriage, and Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) establishing a right to privacy concerning contraceptive use.

Someone, probably an aide, must have whispered to him that he had made a boo-boo when he included interracial marriage in his list of items to be done away with.

Braun later walked back his comments by claiming he misunderstood the question, despite the question being asked multiple times in different ways to ensure Braun meant and understood what he said concerning interracial marriage.

 

[beefheart]

I'm sure he has lots of republicans cheering him on...

 

[tshade]

Certainly looks like Senator Braun (R-IN), believes states should allow discrimination against certain individuals and prohibition of various legal practices. What this would mean for many Americans is being banned from traveling across the nation, as their legal status in one state would be considered illegal in other states and therefore subject such persons to arrest or imposition of fines.



Someone, probably an aide, must have whispered to him that he had made a boo-boo when he included interracial marriage in his list of items to be done away with.

How refreshing to see the familiar GOP bias and ignorance-------a constant we can always rely on in an unstable world.

 

[Nickyjo]

I imagine he would have opposed federal anti-lynching laws, too, wanting the states to handle it. Local is presumably always preferable, but people have always looked to Washington DC when they get no answer from Jackson, MS.

 

[Plasmaball]

Your gop folks. Your gop

 

[ALiberalModerate]

It won't matter. The Democrats pay for their crazy minority, but the Republicans never pay a political cost for their crazy majority.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Braun is an infamous racist, always has been.

Now apparently he hates freedom and the American family as well.

 

[Rexedgar]

I wonder how Associate Justice Brown would vote on this issue……..

 

[TheParser]

Some people think that maybe the future of this country lies in more states' rights.

It would become a federation of states.

People could then move to a state that has their particular cultural values.

It would be a win-win for everyone.

 

[tshade]

Some people think that maybe the future of this country lies in more states' rights.

It would become a federation of states.

People could then move to a state that has their particular cultural values.

It would be a win-win for everyone.

??????? That's the way it is now

 

[TheParser]

??????? That's the way it is now

Really?

 

[tshade]

Really?

yes, really. What are you thinking????

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I imagine he would have opposed federal anti-lynching laws, too, wanting the states to handle it. Local is presumably always preferable, but people have always looked to Washington DC when they get no answer from Jackson, MS.

There is good reason to oppose federal anti-lynching laws, and that’s because the federal government should not possess plenary power and does not under the constitution of 1787. Although that’s moot point since the constitution of 1787 is not the de facto constitution.

In addition despite a lot of handwringing, lynching is not a major issue in the US. It has not been one for almost a century now, and even when lynchings were occurring in the south many whites were lynched as well. So the narrative used to support federal power grab is usually false.

I think over a century from the end of the civil war to world war 2 there were maybe a couple of thousand lynchings total. More people are murdered in America every year then were ever lynched

 

[Greenbeard]

People could then move to a state that has their particular cultural values.

Which states' "cultural values" would lead them to ban contraceptives and interracial marriage if the GOP had its way and overturned the landmark precedents? I have some guesses!

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Which states' "cultural values" would lead them to ban contraceptives and interracial marriage if the GOP had its way and overturned the landmark precedents? I have some guesses!

Contraceptives should absolutely be banned because they encourage selfish behavior.

Young people should be told to enjoy themselves raw and not pull out, and also get married because society should have the right to expect children from them.

 

[TheParser]

yes, really. What are you thinking????

Well, if this were a federation of truly independent states, each state could pass any law it wanted,

There would be no federal Supreme Court.

State A might allow abortion, but it might be a felony in state B.

State C might have no bail for sucker punchers, but it might be a felony in state D.

Americans could then move to the state where they would feel most comfortable.

 

[tshade]

Well, if this were a federation of truly independent states, each state could pass any law it wanted,

it does now

There would be no federal Supreme Court.

true--------but few issues get past the state supreme courts. About .1%, if that...

State A might allow abortion, but it might be a felony in state B.

tyhat is the way it is heading now

State C might have no bail for sucker punchers, but it might be a felony in state D.

see above

Americans could then move to the state where they would feel most comfortable.

like now

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Certainly looks like Senator Braun (R-IN), believes states should allow discrimination against certain individuals and prohibition of various legal practices. What this would mean for many Americans is being banned from traveling across the nation, as their legal status in one state would be considered illegal in other states and therefore subject such persons to arrest or imposition of fines.
Someone, probably an aide, must have whispered to him that he had made a boo-boo when he included interracial marriage in his list of items to be done away with.

FILED UNDER: "I wish a mo-fo would TRY to recriminalize interracial marriage."

 

[Lovebug]

Say what?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Some people think that maybe the future of this country lies in more states' rights.

It would become a federation of states.

People could then move to a state that has their particular cultural values.

It would be a win-win for everyone.

wow

 

[CaughtInThe]

Contraceptives should absolutely be banned because they encourage selfish behavior.

mainly old or flaccid people say that. or maybe those who never had a sex drive.

 

[iguanaman]

Some people think that maybe the future of this country lies in more states' rights.

It would become a federation of states.

People could then move to a state that has their particular cultural values.

It would be a win-win for everyone.

It would mean the end of the USA and a massive blow to freedom in the world. We need to stay united and let the racists die out. Not make a State just for them.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Some people think that maybe the future of this country lies in more states' rights.

It would become a federation of states.

People could then move to a state that has their particular cultural values.

It would be a win-win for everyone.

So I take that you hate the idea of interracial marriage, too?

 

[CaughtInThe]

here he is...

 

[beefheart]

Your gop folks. Your gop

They should have worn their white hoods, it would have made it more honest.