Senator Laments Loving v Virginia

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Court-NOT-legalized-interracial-marriage.html

"An Indiana Republican senator has come under fire after telling reporters that the Supreme Court's 1967 ruling striking down laws banning interracial marriage was wrong and the decision should be left to the states. "

Senator Mike Braun, in remarks to the press on Tuesday, smashed his political career into a brick wall with some of the most ill-advised, clumsy comments to come down the pike in a long time. He is trying to yeahbut his comments by claiming he was talking about states rights and such, but anyone with two brain cells to rub together would know such a statement is a political self-destruct button.

Dumbass.

 

Scratch the surface, and out pops the obvious.

 

The article below I think puts it into context on what he said. Still, it was a complete eff up in that comment while trying to pander to the modern conservative vote for the runoff primary election.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news...uns-comments-interracial-marriage/7138541001/

 

Hard to believe anyone could survive in politics so long with such a tin ear.

 

He also said that he felt the same way about the 1956 ruling that made it legal for married couples to use contraception.

 

Braun claimed he misunderstood the question. I don't know whether that's true. What's more likely is that he didn't grasp the difference between abortion rights, which are sourced to a right to privacy via a penumbra in the Constitution (and therefore debatable) and racial equality, which is specifically guaranteed in the Constitution (and therefore not debatable).

 

I think his mouth shat itself, and now he is in full walkback mode. Either way, stupid.

 

It's the same kind of mistake made by gun control advocates who claim a parallel between a gun license and a driver's license. Gun ownership is constitutionally protected; car ownership is not.

 

Each and every time! It never fails....never.

 

In a constitutional sense, he's probably correct, however it's never about the constitution.

 

How could a person misunderstood about what "judicial activisim" is. That was the question that was asked. He responded with two examples. First abortion rights and second interracial marriage. He specifically ssaid the court should not have interviened and let the states handle the issue in and of itself.

From Braun, he said "Braun's comments came during an open-ended conference call with media, during which he discussed confirmation hearings for President Joe Biden's Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson. That's when he began discussing what he called "judicial activism."

After Braun said he believed abortion rights should've been left up to the states in the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, Dan Carden, a reporter with the Times of Northwest Indiana, asked if he felt the same way about Loving v. Virginia, which struck down all state laws banning interracial marriage."

https://www.indystar.com/story/news...uns-comments-interracial-marriage/7138541001/

 

I believe you are making my point. Abortion and interracial marriage are fundamentally different types of issues, and trying to treat them the same is an error. Interracial marriage is constitutionally protected, without question, everywhere. Abortion's constitutional status remains under constitutional challenge.

 

All rights have certain limitations. We have the right to unreasonable search and seizures. The question then became what is a reasonable search and seizure and what is unreasonable search and seizure. So, the court "created" the issuance of a warrant using the probable cause doctrine of reasonable search and seizure. However, over the years, there are a dozen or so exceptions where no warrant is required for a reasonable search and seizure.

With the Second Admendment, both the use of militias AND the right to keep and bear arms, do have their limits. That is why we have gun control laws about children owning firearms directly, or felons, or regulations on the sale of firearms amongst the variuous states in the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, and the list goes on. Reasonable background checks are necessary to protect the public from harm when purchasing firearms, although convicted felons will most likely never go through a required background check at a commercial retailer. Convicted felons will, however, go through private sales or trades to obtain such a weapon. And private sales are not likely required to have a background check.

 

Interesting but beside the point.

 

In what sense? Wasn't the equal protection law designed to protect people against discrimination from states?

 

Abortion, as it stands right now, is also constituinally protected under the Roe v Wade decision just as interracial marriage is constituionally protected under the Virginia v Loving decision. Thus, they are not fundamentally different.

In the Virginia case, the defendants, Mildred Delores Loving and Richard Loving, were convicted under state law under Section 20-58 and 20-59 of the Virginia Code, the anti-miscegenation laws in the Virginia criminal code. These were felonies, both were tried and both were found guilty of said law. And the law was overturned because it violated the equal protection clause of the United States 14th admendment. Similarily, in Roe v Wade, the constitutional question was the Due Process Clause of the 14th Admendment. In this case, the abortion was also illegal in Texas with the only exception being the life of the mother. Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Doe, was pregnant with her third child and wanted an abortion. She felt at that time that it was unfair and challenged said law. The federal district court in Texas ruled in Jane Doe Favor and the State of Texas directly appealed to the Supreme Court. It was overturned based on the 14th admendment. With little government intrusion, as the court noted in its opinion, "his right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy."

Thus, in both cases, neither is judicial activism exclusively, but judcial review as defined in Marbury v Madison. Judicial Activism is a approach to the exercise of judicial review, or a description of a particular judicial decision, in which a judge is generally considered more willing to decide constitutional issues and to invalidate legislative or executive actions. Thus, in every Supreme Court case, whether you are in favor of the ruling or not, is a form of judicial activism because the Supreme Court decides on Constitutional matters through its authority under the said Constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Opinion_of_the_Court

https://www.britannica.com/topic/judicial-activism

 

Actually it is the point, is it. We have gun control laws, just not gun control laws you don't like.

 

only the 14th Amendment.

 

Abortion rights are sourced to a right to privacy via a penumbra in the Constitution (and therefore debatable). That is why Roe v. Wade has been repeatedly challenged. Racial equality is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution (and therefore not debatable).

 

I'm agnostic on gun control.

 

In short, yes. It was designed to prevent much of laws specific against Blacks like Jim Crow that we ended up getting anyway in spite of the 14th Amendment. But the Supreme Court had already ruled decades earlier on the 14th Amendment that similar ("anti-miscegenation" laws) were constitutional because they punished both races equally. I don't think you had in law that sort of protection until the 1964 civil rights act which was, if I'm correct, was not used in the Loving decision.

I think the decision makes more sense as a civil rights violation via the Civil Rights Act than it does as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, but then, I'm not a lawyer, I only slept in a Holiday Inn last night.

 

See post #21

 

The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental right in the US and you can't use discrimination to block a fundamental right. Therefore the ruling fell under the 14th where all laws were given to everyone.

 

It's too bad politicians can't just say the truth without it ruining their career.

I guess we the stupid voters are responsible for them being liers.

He's totally right, by the way. His point was not about racial segregation. That case just happened to set a precedent. If you can get the federal government to do "the right thing" in one situation, even though it involves intervening in an inappropriate way, someone else can also get the federal government to do the wrong thing in a different situation.

 

Both have been debated numerous times. Even racial equality has been debatable in recent times, usually "which race" should you root for such as Asian or Hispanic or Black. The Fairfax County School Board lawsuit is one very recent example.