AND I THINK YOU MAKE THAT
CLEARLY AND YOU HAVE A MASTERED
THE DETAILS WHICH IS HELPFUL
BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT TO GET
THROUGH HERE.
THIS IS A NEW COMMENT WE WANT TO
PLAY SO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT
IS GOING ON IN THIS INTERSECTION
OF LAW AND POLITICS.
IT HAS BEEN ILLEGAL FOR A LONG
TIME FOR STATES TO TRY TO BAN
PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT RACES FROM
GETTING MARRIED.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY
WHOEVER YOU WANT, REGARDLESS OF
RACE IN AMERICA.
AND YET WHEN IT COMES TO
INTERRACIAL MARRIAGES, THIS IS
NEW TODAY, IN AN INTERVIEW FROM
REPUBLICAN SENATOR MIKE BRAUN
THIS WEEK.
>> SO YOU WOULD BE OKAY WITH THE
SUPREME COURT LEAVING THE
QUESTION OF INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE
TO THE STATES?
>> YES.
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 IS HYPOCRITICAL.
OR BETTER OFF HAVING STATES
MANIFEST THEIR POINTS OF VIEW
RATHER THAN HOMOGENIZEDING IT
ACROSS THE COUNTRY AS ROE V.
WADE DID.
>> THAT IS A VERY OUTLANDISH
CLAIM.
HE'S ALREADY REFERRING TO THE
IDEA THAT STATES WOULD HAVE THE
POWER TO MAN MARRIAGE BETWEEN
PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT RACES.
STORY BLEW UP TODAY.
THAT WAS RECORDED YESTERDAY.
THEN HE LATER SAID TODAY, QUOTE,
THAT HE MISUNDERSTOOD THE
QUESTION AND SAID, QUOTE, THERE
IS NO QUESTION THAT THE
CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION OF ANY KIND BASED
DISCRIMINATION OF ANY KIND BASED
ON RACE, THAT IS NOT EVEN UP FOR
DEBATE AND I CONDEMN RACISM IN
ANY FORMAT ALL LEVELS AND BY ANY
STATES, EBT RITES OR
INDIVIDUALS.
THE ORIGINAL RESPONSE IS
STRIKING.
HIS WORDS ARE THERE SO PEOPLE
HAVE THE CONTEXT THAT HE HAS
CLEARLY SAYING SAID AFTERWARD
THAT HE'S AGAINST RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION AND THAT HE'S NOT
STANDING BY WHAT YOU JUST SAW ON
YOUR SCREEN.
ELI, YOUR RESPONSE.
>> THIS IS A CLASSIC REPUBLICAN
TWO-STEP.
WHERE THEY SAY THEY'RE AGAINST
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, BUT THEY
ARE -- BUT THEY ALSO SAY THAT
THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF THE VERY
KIND OF LEGAL THOUGHT PROCESSES
THAT LED TO THE INSTANCE OF THE
DISCRIMINATION IN THE FIRST
PLACE.
SO WHAT BRAUN IS TALKING ABOUT A
CASE CALLED LOVING V. VIRGINIA
THAT ALLOWS FOR INTERRACIAL
MARRIAGES TO HAPPEN IN THIS
COUNTRY AND THAT WAS DECIDED ON
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS GROUNDS
THAT PEOPLE HAVE SUBSTANTIVE
RIGHTS TO MARRY, AS MARSHA
BLACKBURN SAID, THE RIGHT TO
MARRY IS NOT IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
WE HAVE INFERRED THAT THE
CONSTITUTION MUST INCLUDE A
RIGHT TO MARRY UNDER THE RIGHT
TO PRIVACY WHICH IS A FUNCTION
OF THE SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
WHICH REPUBLICANS DOAN LIKE.
SO THEY SIT THERE AND THEY TRY
TO COME BACK AND THEY TRY TO
COME BACK AND COME OUT WITH
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND THE
RIGHT OF CONTRACEPTION AND ALL
OF THIS KIND OF STUFF.
THEY SAY THEY'RE ONLY CONCERNED
WITH ROE V. WADE, BUT
OCCASIONALLY THE MASK SLIPS AND
IT SHOWS THAT IF YOU TAKE AWAY
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, IF YOU
TAKE AWAY PRIVACY RIGHTS, THERE
IS AN ENTIRE LEGAL CANNON THAT
IS BUILT ON PRIVACY RIGHTS THAT
INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO MARRY AND
CONTRACEPTION AND THAT CRUMBLES
AWAY IN THEIR DEELT.
AND LEAVING SOMETHING LIKE
INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE TO THE
STATES, ALABAMA, EVEN THOUGH
INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE WAS LONG
ALLOWED, ALABAMA STILL HAVE A
STATUTE BANNING THE -- OF THE
RACES AS THEY CALL IT IN
ALABAMA.
THAT DID NOT COME OFF THE BOOKS
UNTIL IT WAS PUT TO A POPULAR
VOTE IN THE YEAR 2000.
THAT IS HOW RECENT IT WAS.
AND THAT IS HOW CLOSE WE COULD
BE AGAIN TO THOSE KINDS OF LAWS
IF PEOPLE LIKE MIKE BRAUN AND
JOHN CORNYN AND LINDSEY GRAHAM
GET THEIR WAY.
>> IT IS REALLY STRIKING.
AND AS YOU SAY, THE HISTORY IS
INSTRUCTIVE AND IF YOU HEAR
PEOPLE SAYING, WELL I'M NOT FOR
X, IN THIS CASE, BANNING PEOPLE
FROM BEING ABLE TO MARRY
REGARDLESS OF RACE, BUT I'M FOR
ALLOWING A STATE TO DO X.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO LAW
SCHOOL TO QUESTION, WELL, GOSH,
WHY IS THAT SO IMPORTANT.
WHY IS ALLOWING A STATE TO DO
THIS THING, IN THIS CASE RANK
RACIST LAW, THAT HAS BEEN
COMPLETELY THROWN OUT, WHY IS
THAT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE
OTHER RIGHTS?
AND IN THIS CASE, I THINK I WANT
TO BE AS COMPREHENSIVE AS
POSSIBLE, PEOPLE COULD MAKE
THEIR OWN MINDS AND I REJECTED
THE ENTERTAINMENT AND, ELI, I
PROMISED PEOPLE THAT WOULD YOU
BE THE EMBODIMENT OF AN EXPRESSO
AND I DON'T FEEL THAT YOU
DISAPPOINTED.
THANK YOU, SIR.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING