So is it?
Or do states have the right to stop a couple from marrying due to skin color.
Allan
Good to know that it is not a question left to the States.
Thank you.
And some of the people who vehemently fought against interracial marriage are still alive and their kids are their late 40s early 50s.
It could be the same dumb argument that was used in the Gay marriage debate.
“And man is free to Marry a woman so we are equal”
Change that to “any man is free to marry a woman of their own race so no discrimination”
Now that argument is really dumb… but not beyond the pale that people would use it seeing as how the exact same argument was levied against the gays.
The problem is the exception exists BECAUSE what was formerly considered a “states rights issue” was “homogenized” at the federal level.
This is what he was being asked about! When to apply his “non-homogenization” and when TO do it!
And again seriously? If you’re “put on the spot” you can’t recall interracial marriage went to SCOTUS?
Don’t serve in government if you can’t remember some landmark events, then.
Come on, man!
1 Like
It didn’t use to be. It was “homogenized” to the federal level.
So would Braun’s application of his “non-homogenization” principle have allowed him to recognize that this issue was an exception to his principle?
Nope, he was asked about abortion, said it should be states rights issue, when asked about what everyone is all in a tizzy over, his response was “to be consistent” it should be states rights, it was in the quote. Nothing more than that.
Funny, I didn’t see that in the quoted section. Care to point that out?
1 Like
You didn’t read the article?
Reporter: Hi, Senator. You spoke about judicial activism. If the Supreme Court later this year strikes down the right to abortion, would you consider that judicial activism, legislating from the bench?
Braun: I consider it to have been judicial activism when it occurred back almost 50 years ago. So I think this would be bringing it back to a neutral point to where that issue should have never been federalized, way out of sync I think with the contour of America then. This puts it back to a point where, like most of these issues, where one side of the aisle wants to homogenize it federally, it’s not the right way to do it.
This should be something where the expression of individual states are able to weigh in on these issues through their own legislation, through their own court systems, quit trying to put the federal government in charge of not only things like we did navigating through COVID recently, where I think that was misguided, but in general. So no, I think this takes it back to a point where it should have never gotten beyond in the first place.
Reporter: Would that same basis [apply] to something like Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that legalized interracial marriage?
Braun: When it comes to issues, you can’t have it both ways. When you want that diversity to shine within our federal system, there are going to be rules, and proceedings, that are going to be out of sync with maybe what other states would do. That’s the beauty of the system. And that’s where the differences among points of view in our 50 states ought to express themselves. And I’m not saying that rule would apply in general, depending on the topic, but it should mostly be in general, because it’s hard to have it on issues that you are just are interested in when you deny it for others with a different point of view.
Reporter: So you would be OK with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states?
Braun: 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. I think that’s hypocritical.
Reporter: What about Griswold v. Connecticut?
Braun: You can list a whole bunch of issues, when it comes down to whatever they are. I’m going to say that they’re not all going to make you happy within a given state, but we’re better off states manifest their points of view rather than homogenizing it across the country as Roe v. Wade did.
1 Like
Look…. We can’t expect a Senator sitting on the Judiciary Committee to have actual recall of landmark cases other than Roe v Wade.
What are we? The Soviet Union?
Watch or read about the entire exchange.
He knew what he was being asked about and he went more than just talk about abortion…he talked about issues in general that should not be “homogenized” at a state level.
Abortion, interracial marriage and birth control.
Three biggies right there. 
We’re better off letting the different states decide if they want to regulate those.
Small government, individual liberty conservatism right there!
If everyone in the country is allowed to buy condoms, is anybody truly free?
1 Like
Let’s not stop there.
School choice. (Brown v BOE, George Wallace wanting to prevent integration of a taxpayer funded school)
Sodomy laws
Same sex marriage laws.
Allan
So where does he say the case was decided wrongly?
Of course on the other side is the masterpiece cake opinion.
Allan
I just read what Doctor posted, again, what I see is he is saying is simply consistency. Not that he supports it, just that you should be consistent.
1 Like
But whatever I say, it is irrelevant because it doesn’t fit the narrative being pushed.
The Salon article says “Senator says legalizing interracial marriage was a mistake”. I suspect an article titled “Senator says legalizing interracial marriage should be determined at the state level and then retracts opinion” would have not resulted in a thread or caught the attention of Salon’s base.
1 Like
Nonetheless, the question should be left to the states.
Libs are leaping to an assumption that some state would ban interracial marriage. That’s the fabricated agita in this thread.
2 Likes
If he’s being consistent with his “non-homogenization” principle, then he supports the idea that Loving was wrong.
You are parsing.
