People didn't just accept it was settled law. People were told it was from sorts of legal figures, including 3 or 4 of the Justices that unsettled it.
Some have my whole life. They point to an old testament verse about tribes not intermingling. It us not a majority opinion, but that clearly doesn't matter. And state populations can't decide, gerrymandering in many states (Michigan, Wisconsin, ohio) guarantee gop control even with clear minority of voters. You only need to convince the right conservatives. Get tucker Carlson to say it and it is well on the way. After sleeping on it, I think it is totally possible if we continue on this way. If it doesn't come about I will mocked, but fundamentally we are in a place where it is both technically possible and an issue which could quickly rise in prominence due to it not effecting most people and have a biblical justification. They call it preventing white genocide. Will not be the first time a nazi talking point becomes a mainstream conservative talking point. Ala the great replacement.
I would really like it if both Ds and Rs let their parties go to the far left/far right and a third party of just normal people started up.
I took what he was saying as elected Republicans. Are there any elected Republicans saying that interracial marriage should go away? If so, who? I don't think interracial marriage is one of the issues that will require you to be in one in order to care. It's so blatantly against where we are as a country.
Already starting to see stories where doctor's aren't comfortable making the call of when a woman's life is in danger in states where trigger laws have already gone into effect. I shouldn't be surprised when some of these states attempted to sue women for miscarriages, a doctor isn't going to want to spend years in prison unless the patient already flatlining.
Based on my tired, non lawyer reading of this article, it's definitely not included in Roe in the same way it's included in Loving (not sure about Obergefell). It sounds like this author *wanted* it to be included as part of abortion protection, as he/she felt that would further solidify it: The cases and background provided seems to go part of the way, but not the entire way to showing that abortion rights are protected by the Equal Protection Clause in the way that interracial marriage is, explicitly, in Loving.
GOP SENATOR MIKE BRAUN CLAIMS HE DIDN’T MEAN TO SAY STATES SHOULD BE ABLE TO BAN INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE, DESPITE SAYING IT MULTIPLE TIMES https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/mike-braun-supreme-court-interracial-marriage
46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Support Banning Interracial Marriage https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat...sippi-republicans-oppose-interracial-marriage
It seems like a "gotcha" moment, based on the 45 seconds I've spent in review. Like Float was saying, if you are basing four different decisions in the Due Process Clause in the same way, then you can't remove one and not remove the others. That would be hypocritical. I think Braun is basically saying the same thing. Nowhere in that video does he say that he thinks states should or would outlaw interracial marriage. He's walking it back because that's what you have to do when the mob comes for you. And again, I've since brought up that Loving was based PRIMARILY on Equal Protection Clause and Secondarily on Due Process. So it's not really the same thing, at least based on what I've read. But whatever.