Here’s the exchange between a reporter and senator Braun of Indiana.
REPORTER: “You would be okay with the Supreme Court leaving the issue of interracial marriage to the states?”
SEN. MIKE BRAUN (R-IN): “Yes. If you are not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you are not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too.”
And an article about it.
Just terrible that a sitting senator doesn’t understand the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Notice how this is all framed? It’s another example of a trough, feeding it’s sheople and they regurbleat it in the circles they travel.
Senator Says Legalizing Interracial Marriage Was a Mistake,
( Braun, the junior senator from Indiana, made his comments during a media call in which he argued that policy issues should generally be left in the hands of state governments whenever possible, especially in the case of abortion.
“So you would be OK with the Supreme court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states?” a reporter asked.
“Yes,” Braun answered. “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. I think that’s hypocritical.“)
IOW…he wasn’t agreeing with the sentiment but if you go with the SC not getting into state’s business, that’s a potential outcome. He’s not agreeing with this in any way, shape or form but that isn’t how it’s being fed, is it? The reporter frames the inflammatory question to the principle the Senator is in favor of and then feeds it that this is what the Senator wants. People/sheople…stand back and wake up. You’re being sheoplizied…PERIOD!
This was a simple issue of where legal authority lies, not on the ethics of interracial marriage. He apparently wasn’t familiar with the courts reasoning of why this dead issue lay with the federal courts.
I say dead issue because it has been resolved for decades.
What a completely misleading headline by Slate (anyone surprised).
It’s like saying that you believe making robbery illegal is a state decision not a federal issue, and slate putting up a headline saying you favor robbery.
All this thread does is discredit Slate even further…if that were possible.
I am pretty sure the court itself was of that opinion prior to Loving, having ruled previously it wasn’t a federal question. In any case, whether someone believes it to be a state or federal issue doesn’t equate to being against interracial marriage, which is what Slate is implying.
