General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMAGAt Moron Senator Says Supreme Court Should Have Never Legalized Interracial Marriage
Mike Braun (R-Ind.) tried to walk back his comments, but his answer to a question about judicial activism was pretty explicitSen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) went so far as to tell reporters on Tuesday that he doesnt believe interracial marriage should be legal nationwide, before later walking back his comments, claiming he didnt understand the question. The question, however, was pretty explicit.
You would be okay with the Supreme Court leaving the issue of interracial marriage to the states? Braun was asked.
Yes, he said. 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.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/mike-braun-says-interracial-marriage-should-be-illegal-1325336/
agingdem
(7,849 posts)he said it, he believes it, he wants it...this is who he is..an unintelligent racist/bigot/misogynist,..Braun, you pathetic excuse for a human being, your verbal poison is out there, you don't get a walk back...
calimary
(81,238 posts)He only did whatever that was that youd call it, because he got shit for his original statement. Yet another Great Eleventh-Century Mind of Our Time.
Lovie777
(12,257 posts)anti- abortion, CRT, anti-voting rights, anti-civil rights, only one religion, anti-interracial marriage, anti-LGBT, anti-life.
sakabatou
(42,152 posts)dalton99a
(81,475 posts)Mike Nelson
(9,954 posts)... this would unite the US Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision.
Emile
(22,708 posts)TNNurse
(6,926 posts)I know they are saying "states rights" and I think that person would have been a slave holder and confederate soldier.
I have lived in the south all my life, I know the history. People have been talking about "states rights" for years. We all know they mean states rights to own slaves.
As much as I despise both of them, I would like to see this asshole say that to Mr. & Mrs. Clarence Thomas to their faces.
Response to TNNurse (Reply #7)
LastLiberal in PalmSprings This message was self-deleted by its author.
TNNurse
(6,926 posts)you insult me and many others. Essentially you insulted Jimmy Carter. Some southerners is more appropriate.
When I see such comments on here, I will always speak out.
Farmer-Rick
(10,163 posts)And they talk a good game but were not above ignoring Northern States rights when it suited them.
"Each new territory that applied for statehood threatened to upset this balance of power. Southerners consistently argued for states rights and a weak federal government but it was not until the 1850s that they raised the issue of secession."
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/states-rights#:~:text=The%20Fugitive%20Slave%20Law%20of,over%20to%20their%20Southern%20masters.
The South is all in favor of states rights until they want to impose their racist beliefs on others. The Fugitive Slave Acts too away many of the Northern States control over escapees. But in that case funnily enough, the South did not mind the loss of State Rights.
Bunch of broken records.
IronLionZion
(45,433 posts)Federal supreme court cases are to strike down the screwing of citizens and protect them from states.
For the Loving vs Virginia case the senator was asked about, the Lovings were perfectly legally married in DC but kept getting arrested every time they set foot in Virginia. There were similar problems for gay couples until recently.
Response to 634-5789 (Original post)
YoshidaYui This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ford_Prefect
(7,895 posts)He is not stupid but he is profoundly racist. He is the GOP prototype: a rich, outspoken white male elitist, racist and misogynist.
Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)ashredux
(2,605 posts)maxrandb
(15,324 posts)at the hearings.
maxrandb
(15,324 posts)It serves as a Senator from Indianastan
GB_RN
(2,350 posts)For those who dont remember, it was in Dred Scott v. Sandford that the Taney-led SCOTUS ruled that The Constitutuon was not meant to apply to Black people, free or otherwise, ergo they had no rights or citizenship.
Racist fuck.
Marthe48
(16,949 posts)This guy couldn't put a jigsaw together. He is incapable of seeing the big picture. Can any mentally competent person see what kind of problems allowing unimpeded states' rights is leading to? If we keep going backwards, we are losing the blanket protection of the law of the land. I can think of 5 interracial marriages in my family. These couples will always be welcome in my life, but if they came to visit me, and Ohio had outlawed interracial marriages, which I can totally see the diapers in our state house doing, would they have to sneak in under the cover of darkness, hide inside, and leave the same way?
States' rights advocacy is being abused, and every time a state is allowed a pass on some extreme legislation that is counter to the law of the land, we are losing more free passage between state borders. I have no desire to visit any of the states that are suppressing voter rights, suppressing civil rights, revoking women's health rights, interfering with the intimate and inviolable home and hearth of families, limiting all Americans who still believe it is possible to achieve Life Liberty and Happiness for the smug gratification of a minority of narrow-mined judgemental and flawed people who think they are American, but are not.
Texin
(2,596 posts)niyad
(113,284 posts)twodogsbarking
(9,739 posts)gab13by13
(21,323 posts)he's on the SC.