The Indiana senator later said he ‘misunderstood’ a reporter’s question on the 1967 Supreme Court decision and condemned racism
By Mariana Alfaro
Today
Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) said Tuesday that he would be open to the Supreme Court overturning its 1967 ruling that legalized interracial marriage nationwide to allow states to independently decide the issue.
Braun — who made the comments during a conference call in which he discussed the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court — also said he’d welcome the rescinding of several key decisions made by the court in the past 70 years to pass the power to the states.
His remarks were first reported by local outlets NWI.com and WFYI Indianapolis.
Critical of activism from the bench, Braun cited a series of landmark decisions made by the court, including Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion, and Loving v. Virginia, which legalized interracial marriage.
When asked by a reporter whether he would consider the Supreme Court potentially striking down Roe this year to be “judicial activism,” Braun said he thought what justices did in 1973 to pass Roe was “judicial activism.”
“That issue should have never been federalized, [it was] way out of sync I think with the contour of America then,” he said. “One side of the aisle wants to homogenize [issues] federally, [and that] is not the right way to do it.”
Individual states, he said, should be able to weigh in on these issues “through their own legislation, through their own court systems.”
The same reporter asked Braun whether he would apply the same judgment to Loving, and Braun said “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,” he said. “I think that’s hypocritical.”
The reporter asked whether Braun would say the same about Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court decision that a state’s ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy.
“You can list a whole host of issues,” Braun said. “When it comes down to whatever they are, I’m going to say that they’re not going to all make you happy within a given state, but that we’re better off having states manifest their points of view rather than homogenizing it across the country, as Roe v. Wade did.”
In a statement to The Washington Post after the conference call, Braun said he “misunderstood” the reporter’s questions on Loving and stressed that he opposes racism.
“I misunderstood a line of questioning that ended up being about interracial marriage,” Braun said. “Let me be clear on that issue — there is no question the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race, that is not something that is even up for debate, and I condemn racism in any form, at all levels and by any states, entities, or individuals.”
Braun did not comment on whether he also misunderstood the line of questioning on Roe or Griswold.
Braun said that while Jackson seems qualified for a seat on the court, he said he expects her not to be an “activist” during her tenure.
“Stick with interpreting the law,” Braun said, according to WFYI. “Don’t legislate from the bench.”
As the Senate weighs Jackson’s nomination, some of Braun’s fellow Senate Republicans have questioned landmark Supreme Court decisions.
On Monday, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), during her questioning of Jackson, said she opposes Griswold, calling the decision “constitutionally unsound.”
Similarly, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) questioned Jackson on Tuesday on the court’s authority in Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that legalized marriage equality — which he called an “edict.”
“When the Supreme Court decides that something that is not even in the Constitution is a fundamental right and no state can pass any law that conflicts with the Supreme Court’s edict, particularly in an area where people have sincerely held religious beliefs, doesn’t that necessarily create a conflict between what people may believe as a matter of their religious doctrine or faith and what the federal government says is the law of the land?” Cornyn asked Jackson.
Jackson said that “is the nature of a right.”
“When there is a right, it means that there are limitations on regulation, even if people are regulating pursuant to their sincerely held religious beliefs,” Jackson said.
By Mariana Alfaro is a reporter for The Washington Post's breaking political news team. The El Salvador native joined The Post in 2019 as a researcher for the Daily 202, our flagship politics newsletter. Before that, Mariana interned at the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Insider, and The Texas Tribune. Twitter
GOP's Mike Braun scrambles to walk back claim that states should be able to ban interracial marriage
Brad Reed
March 22, 2022
Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) on Tuesday scrambled to backtrack after he said earlier in the day that he believed states should be allowed to ban interracial marriage.
In a statement provided to NBC News congressional reporter Julie Tsirkin, Braun claimed that he "misunderstood" a reporter's question about whether he'd be fine with the Supreme Court reversing its past precedent by leaving the issue of interracial marriage up to individual states.
"There is no question the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race, that is not something that is even up for debate, and I condemn racism in any form," Braun said.
RELATED: Mike Braun ripped for suggesting states should be allowed to stop interracial marriage
However, the complete exchange between Braun and the reporter makes it hard to see how Braun could have possibly "misunderstood" the question.
"So you would be okay with the Supreme Court leaving the issue of interracial marriage to the states?" the reporter asked him.
"Yes," Braun replied. "I think that's something where 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."
Braun made the remarks about interracial marriage to defend his argument that states should be allowed to set their own abortion policies instead of having them set by the United States Supreme Court.
Brad Reed
March 22, 2022
Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) on Tuesday scrambled to backtrack after he said earlier in the day that he believed states should be allowed to ban interracial marriage.
In a statement provided to NBC News congressional reporter Julie Tsirkin, Braun claimed that he "misunderstood" a reporter's question about whether he'd be fine with the Supreme Court reversing its past precedent by leaving the issue of interracial marriage up to individual states.
"There is no question the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race, that is not something that is even up for debate, and I condemn racism in any form," Braun said.
RELATED: Mike Braun ripped for suggesting states should be allowed to stop interracial marriage
However, the complete exchange between Braun and the reporter makes it hard to see how Braun could have possibly "misunderstood" the question.
"So you would be okay with the Supreme Court leaving the issue of interracial marriage to the states?" the reporter asked him.
"Yes," Braun replied. "I think that's something where 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."
Braun made the remarks about interracial marriage to defend his argument that states should be allowed to set their own abortion policies instead of having them set by the United States Supreme Court.
Legal expert accuses GOP senator of citing argument against interracial marriage in Judge Jackson hearing
Sarah K. Burris
March 22, 2022
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) used two main cases from the 1800s to ask about same-sex marriage, which was legalized by the Supreme Court in 2015. But many saw problems with his argument that were characterized as both racist and factually incorrect.
Cornyn, who was once the attorney general of Texas, asked Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson if she would agree that The Dred Scott case and Plessy v. Ferguson "were appropriately overruled by the Supreme Court." Dred Scott was never overturned by the Supreme Court, it was overturned by the 13th Amendment. At the time, March 6, 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution didn't give citizenship to those kidnapped in Africa and brought to the United States as slaves.
Addressing the line of questioning, legal analyst Elie Mystal lamented that the argument from Cornyn was making was about "substantive due process," which wasn't even invented during those cases.
He also remarked that the way that Cornyn was discussing marriage and using the argument of "inventing" new rights was the same argument made when racists protested interracial marriage. The idea of religious freedom, he seemed to argue, allows people to block marriages.
What same-sex marriage advocates effectively explained was that because people need a marriage license from the state or municipality, the government can't block those based on religious objections. Churches have the religious freedom to do whatever they want, but the state can't prioritize religion over the rights of individuals.
Cornyn began the conversation by "asking about some decisions that the Supreme Court has made recently" but both Plessy and Scott were from the 1800s.
See the video as well as Mystal's thread and annoyed experts agreeing with him below:
WATCH: Cornyn questions Jackson on marriage equality and freedom of religion
Sarah K. Burris
March 22, 2022
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) used two main cases from the 1800s to ask about same-sex marriage, which was legalized by the Supreme Court in 2015. But many saw problems with his argument that were characterized as both racist and factually incorrect.
Cornyn, who was once the attorney general of Texas, asked Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson if she would agree that The Dred Scott case and Plessy v. Ferguson "were appropriately overruled by the Supreme Court." Dred Scott was never overturned by the Supreme Court, it was overturned by the 13th Amendment. At the time, March 6, 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution didn't give citizenship to those kidnapped in Africa and brought to the United States as slaves.
Addressing the line of questioning, legal analyst Elie Mystal lamented that the argument from Cornyn was making was about "substantive due process," which wasn't even invented during those cases.
He also remarked that the way that Cornyn was discussing marriage and using the argument of "inventing" new rights was the same argument made when racists protested interracial marriage. The idea of religious freedom, he seemed to argue, allows people to block marriages.
What same-sex marriage advocates effectively explained was that because people need a marriage license from the state or municipality, the government can't block those based on religious objections. Churches have the religious freedom to do whatever they want, but the state can't prioritize religion over the rights of individuals.
Cornyn began the conversation by "asking about some decisions that the Supreme Court has made recently" but both Plessy and Scott were from the 1800s.
See the video as well as Mystal's thread and annoyed experts agreeing with him below:
WATCH: Cornyn questions Jackson on marriage equality and freedom of religion
No comments:
Post a Comment