March 23, 2022

During a media call, Indiana's Senator Mike Braun really showed his hand, or rather, his hood on interracial marriage.

"So, you would be okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states?" asked the reporter, who was calling in.

"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. I think that's hypocritical," answered Braun.

"What about Griswold v. Connecticut, do you..." the reporter tried to follow up, citing the case where the Supreme Court ruled that married couples have the right to privacy regarding their contraceptive choices.

Braun interrupted him, saying, "Well, you could list a whole host of issues. 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."

I'm not the first to be alarmed that the GOP isn't even trying to hide their racism behind white hoods anymore. This is now mainstream for Republicans to be out and proud with their white supremacy.

He tried to backtrack hours later, according to the Indy Star, releasing the following statement:

“Earlier during a virtual press conference 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.”

Nice try, Senator. If you really think so, then come out and say Loving was correctly decided, because certain matters cannot be trusted in the hands of the states. Even in this day and age.

Twitter amplified the warning bells.

UPDATE (Karoli): The IndyStar just published the transcript of the interview. I think it's clear he understood exactly what he was answering and what he was saying:

Question: Senator, you spoke about judicial activism. If this Supreme Court later this year strikes down the right to abortion, would you consider that to be judicial activism legislating from the bench?

Answer: I consider it to have been judicial activism when it occurred back almost 50 years ago. So I think this would be bringing it back to a neutral point to where that issue should have never been federalized, way out of sync I think with the contours of America then. And this basically puts it back to a point where, like most of these issues when one side of the aisle wants to homogenize it federally, is not the right way to do it. This should be something where the expression of individual states are able to weigh in on these issues, through their own legislation, through their own court systems. Quit trying to put the federal government in charge of not only things like we did navigating through COVID recently, where I think that was misguided, but in general. So now I think this takes it back to a point where it should have never gotten beyond in the first place.

Question: Would you apply that same basis to something like Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that legalized interracial marriage?

Answer: When it comes to the issues, you can't have it both ways. When you want that diversity to shine within our federal system, there are going to be rules and proceedings, they're going to be out of sync with maybe what other states would do. It's a beauty of the system, and that's where the differences among points of view in our 50 states ought to express themselves. And I'm not saying that rule would apply in general depending on the topic, but it should mostly be in general, because it's hard to have it on issues that you just are interested in when you deny it for others with a different point of view.

Question: So you would be OK with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states?

Answer: 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. I think that's hypocritical.

Question: What about Griswold v. Connecticut?

Answer: You can list a whole host of issues. 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.

I think it's clear he knew exactly what was being asked and what his answer was.

Can you help us out?

For 17 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.

Discussion

We are currently migrating to Disqus

On May 14, 2022, we started migrating our comments from Insticator back to Disqus. During this transition period, some posts will have Insticator and some Disqus. For more information on the transition, as well as information regarding old C&L accounts, please see this post.


We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.