 Senator says legalizing interracial marriage was a mistake, backtracks unconvincingly. Mike Braun of Indiana told reporters that the Supreme Court was wrong to strike down state laws that banned black and white Americans from wedding. I just, I don't know what to say. Let's watch the video. So I love that they got this on film and we don't just have to read the article. So reporter asks, would you be okay with the Supreme Court leaving the issue of interracial marriage to the states? Senator Mike Braun, a real life person said very clearly yes. He said yes. So we'll show you what he said when he backtracked, but let's listen to this. So you would be okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states? By the way, this is not an audio file with the picture. He's just frozen. Like he's not even blinking. Let me let me go back just so you can see. So you would be okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states? 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. About Griswold versus Connecticut. 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 versus Wade did. So you would be... I don't know. That's pretty clear. That's pretty clear. That is pretty clear. Again, let's listen to what he has to say. Question of interracial marriage to the states? Yes, I think that that's something that... Wow. Wow. So if a state wants to outlaw interracial marriage, he's saying, yeah, okay. What if a state wants to round up gay people and put them in reeducation camps? States writes, or what if a state wants to own slaves? It's not like we had a civil war about this in the past, right? So apparently, even though he was very clear there and saying if a state wants to outlaw interracial marriages, they should be able to do that. Well, he backtracks. That sounded pretty unambiguous. So this is from Slate. Jordan Wiseman wrote this article. So that sounded pretty unambiguous, right? But afterward, bronze office issued a statement attempting to walk back the comment suggesting he had misunderstood the question despite having seemingly answered with unblinking certitude. Right. See, I don't know that I believe him. It's such an absurd position that I want to be charitable and I want to think, okay, there's no way. He's just straight up going full mask off and he's saying, yeah, I think that we should allow states. If they want to, to ban interracial marriages, but he was incredibly clear. He was incredibly clear. So this is their excuse here. Earlier during a virtual press conference, I misunderstood a line of questioning that ended up being about interracial marriage. Yeah, the fuck you did. Let me be clear on that issue. There's 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. But isn't this going to lead to the homogenization of the issue nationally? I mean, you don't just say that you're okay with it. You go on to make an argument for interracial marriage. So it's just, it's hard to accept this, right? Again, like I want to accept it and be charitable here because it's so absurd. Who's against interracial marriage in the year 20 fucking 22? But he was so fucking clear. He was so fucking clear. The only way he could have possibly been clearer is if he said yes, I think that interracial marriage is bad. But I mean, he not only said yes affirmatively, he explained his reasoning. So I just, I don't know what to make of this. 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, keep in mind that this exchange occurred after a long question and answer session in which Braun repeatedly suggested that states should handle major policy issues when it was practical, even including ones like marijuana legalization that conservatives often prefer to address federally. Hi Senator, you spoke about judicial activism. If the Supreme Court later this year strikes down the right to abortion, would you consider that judicial activism legislating from the bench? I would say yes, that's judicial activism. That's essentially super precedent. Yeah, he says I consider it to have been judicial activism when it occurred back almost 50 years ago. What? So he's talking about these older Supreme Court rulings. So if that's judicial activism is loving the Virginia also judicial activism. We're talking kind of about the same era, are we not? So I think this would be bringing it back to a neutral point to where that issue should have never been federalized. This in and of itself, if we grant him the interracial marriage comment being a misunderstanding, what he's saying here is still absurd. This is a pro-death position. He's saying actually I think that in some states it's perfectly fine if that legislature wants to subject women to illegal unsafe abortions. If we want to go back to Cote Hanger, back alley abortions in Mississippi, in Texas, why not? That's fine. I'm fine. I'm okay with that. It's ridiculous. Way out of sync with what I think 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's 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. Let me highlight this here. 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 no, I think this takes it back to a point where it should have never gotten beyond the first place. So he's making a very strong case for states' rights. So when they bring up something like Loving v. Virginia, he, oh, oh, wait. They bring it up twice. Holy shit. Okay, this is getting worse. Would that same basis apply to something like Loving v. Virginia? That's the case that found the constitutional right to interracial marriages. The Supreme Court case that legalized interracial marriage. Okay, he explained it for them. When it comes to issues, you can't have it both ways. Okay, this, it's getting a lot more incriminating as we get the full context. Okay, I've got to read this question again. Would that same basis apply to something like Loving v. Virginia? The Supreme Court case that legalized interracial marriage? He responds, when it comes to 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 that are going to be out of sync with maybe what other states would do. So at this point, this is at least a tacit acknowledgement that he, there was something in his brain that acknowledged, okay, now we're talking about a different issue. Now we're talking about interracial marriage because he's referencing how that might be pretty unpopular. That's the 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 are just are interested in when you deny it for others with a different point of view. So because it sounded right here like he's kind of green-lighting states banning interracial marriages, he said they ask logically. So would you be okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states? He says yes. That, I don't know. I don't know. That's sus. That is very, very sus. Folks, I think that Mike Braun might literally be against interracial marriage and maybe he didn't respond until he got backlash, but that is not very convincing. When you have the full context, it gets way worse. I don't know what to say. Thoughts, chat? It feels like to me that he was trying to maybe dip his toes in the waters of just classic racist bigotry where you just say the quiet part loud. Yeah, he wants to preserve the Confederate choice. Yeah, exactly, exactly. I don't know, man. That sounds really sus to me. That sounds very, very sus to me.