Sen. Mike BraunMichael BraunSenat GOP Eyes Hunter Biden, Fauci Probe After Midterms Overnight Health Care – White House Strengthens COVID Money Warnings Senate Panel Launches Pandemic Readiness Bill on Bipartisan Vote MORE (R-Ind.) On Tuesday expressed – and then backed down – opposition to the Supreme Court ruling that interracial marriage was legalized.
Brown was at a conference with reporters from Indiana, discussing court rulings he saw as federal submission, according to The Times of Northwest Indiana. The News Outlet shared a clip of his remarks in which he was asked whether he would consider it a judicial activism or legislate by the bank if the Supreme Court ruled out the right to an abortion.
zA The court is set to rule on the Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban later this year, with many expecting the 6-3 Conservative court’s decision of 1973 Roe v.
“I consider it to have been judicial activism as it happened almost 50 years ago,” Brown replied, referring to Roe v. Wade.
“So I think this would bring it back to a neutral point where this issue should never be federalized out of sync, I think, with the contour of America back then. And that puts it basically back to a point where, like that most of these issues, where one side of the aisle wants to homogenize it federally, is not the right way to do it, “he continued.
Brown stated that he believes the issue of abortion should be left to each state to decide individually.
“This should be something where the expressions of individual states are able to weigh on these issues, through their own legislation, through their own judicial systems. Go on trying to hold the federal government accountable for not just things like we did recently through COVID have navigated where I think that was misguided, but in general.So no, I think this brings it back to a point where it should never have come out at all.
Brown was pressed whether he believed the same arguments – for the states to decide for themselves – should also apply to the Supreme Court Case Loving v. Virginia applies, allowing for interracial marriage throughout the country.
The Indiana Senator said that “when it comes to issues, you can not have it on both sides.”
“If you want this diversity to shine in our federal system, then there are rules and procedures. They go out of sync with maybe what other states would do. It’s a beauty of the system. And that’s where the differences between positions and ours come from. “50 states should express themselves,” Brown said.
“And I’m not saying that the rule applies generally, depending on the topic, but it should be mostly general, because it’s hard to have it on topics you’re only interested in if you refuse it to others with someone else. . Point of view.”
Brown was again asked whether the question of interracial marriage should be left to the states.
“Yes, I think that is something that if you do not want the Supreme Court to rule on such issues, then you can not eat your cake either. I think that is hypocritical,” he said.
He later added that it would be better for states to “manifest their views” rather than for decisions that “homogenize” the country.
In a statement to The Hill later Tuesday, Brown said he “misunderstood” the question posed.
“Before a virtual press conference, I misunderstood a series of questions that came to an end about interracial marriage, let me be clear on this issue – there is no question that 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 all states, entities or individuals,” he said.
A spokesman told Hill that Brown believes Loving v. Virginia should not be reversed.
The Times of Northwest Indiana notes that Brown has been asked about this topic in several ways and several times to make sure he understands the nature of the issue.
Add Comment