The Republican Sen. Mike Braun is attempting a rather unconvincing cleanup after he told reporters on Tuesday that the Supreme Court was wrong to pass state laws banning interracial marriage in its 1967 landmark decision, Love vs Virginia.
Brown, the junior senator from Indiana, made his remarks during a media call in which he argued that political issues in general should be left in the hands of state governments whenever possible, especially in the event of abduction.
“So you would be OK with the Supreme Court to leave the question of interracial marriage to the states?” asked a reporter.
“Yes,” Brown replied. “I think that’s something that if you do not want the Supreme Court to weigh in on such issues, you can not have your cake and eat it too. I think that is hypocritical.”
That sounded pretty unambiguous! But then Brown’s office issued a statement trying to retract the comment, suggesting he misunderstood the question, although he apparently answered with unfortunate certainty.
Earlier during a virtual press conference I misunderstood a question line that came to an end about interracial marriage, let me be clear on the subject – there is no question that the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind on the basis of race, that is not something that is ever open to debate, and I condemn racism in any form, at all levels and by all states, entities or individuals.
Could this really have been an honest misunderstanding? Let’s look at the fuller transcript, starting with where the reporter first asks about abortion.
For context, consider that this exchange took place after a lengthy question and answer session, in which Brown repeatedly suggested that states should address major political issues when practical, including those like marijuana legalization that conservatives often prefer to address federally.
Reporter: Hello Senator. You talked about judicial activism. If the Supreme Court ruled later this year on the right to abortion, would you consider that judicial activism, legislation of the bank?
Braun: I consider it to have been judicial activism as it happened almost 50 years ago. So I think, I think, this would bring it back to a neutral point where the issue should never be federalized, far from synchronizing, 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 is not the right path.
This should be something where the expression of individual states is able to stop these issues through their own legislation, through their own judicial systems, trying to hold the federal government accountable not just things like we recently navigated through COVID, where I think that was misguided, but in general. So no, I think that brings me back to a point where it should never get any further.
Reporter: Give the same basis [apply] to something like Love v. Virginiathe Supreme Court case that legalizes interracial marriage?
Braun: When it comes to problems, you can not have it two ways. If you want diversity to shine in our federal system, then there are rules, and procedures that are out of sync with perhaps what other states would do. That is the beauty of the system. And this is where the differences between the positions within our 50 states should be expressed. 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 a different opinion. .
Reporter: So would you be OK if the Supreme Court left the question of interracial marriage to the states?
Braun: Yes. I think this 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.
Reporter: What about Griswold vs. Connecticut?
Braun: You can list a whole bunch of issues when it comes to what they are, I’ll say they do not make you all happy in a particular state, but we are better off states manifesting their views instead of homogenizing it across the country as Roe vs Wade made.
Here and there there are a few nasty pieces, but overall, Brown seems to understand for sure what he is talking about, and actually sounds like a man who has thought about this whole subject very carefully. The first time the reporter asks him about interracial marriage, he says “you can not have it on both sides” when it comes to the rights of states, and that “diversity” is the “beauty of the system.” The second time he asked whether the court should allow states to determine whether black-and-white Americans are married or not, he says “yes.” Finally asked about Griswold v. Connecticut, the case where the court has repealed laws prohibiting prevention, he says that regardless of the question, he pretty much always believes that states have the right to “manifest their views” (because we all talking like Instagram influencers now). To his credit, Brown is extremely clear and consistent. Say what you will about 1950s-style state rights fundamentalism, at least it’s an ethos.
Anyway, it feels like it’s been a while since a conservative politician was quickly withdrawn in embarrassment over a racist gaff, rather than doubling or stretching the fake news to distort their words. In this way, Braun’s cleaning work is somehow refreshing. At least the man, or his staff, is capable of shame.
Add Comment