GOP lawmakers have certainly shown their hand during the confirmation hearings for
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson,
making it clear that abortion is not the only thing they're going after.
They're looking to roll back progress on a whole host of social issues.
Supreme Court rulings that were made literally decades ago on things
like interracial marriage.
Yes, they're mentioning that and even the access to birth control.
So, one person I wanted to talk about a little bit here is Republican senator
Mike Braun.
He's from Indiana and he decided to have a meeting with some journalists,
answer some of their questions about the Supreme Court nomination hearings.
And he said some things that are concerning like this,
whenever I vote for Supreme Court Justice,
it's going to be basically how are you going to interpret the law.
If your record shows that you're going to be kind of an activist there,
I don't think that's good and I don't think the founders intended it that way.
So let's pause.
This type of statement is par for the course.
Let's just be absolutely clear about the fact that every political party,
each political party expects the judges they nominate to be activist judges.
Okay, that's the reason why you have the Federalist Society pushing for
the right wing judges that have been confirmed into our Supreme Court.
The three who were confirmed during the Trump administration were all
endorsed by the Federalist Society and I Democrats pick more liberal judges.
Conservative's pick more conservative judges, why?
Because they don't expect them to be activist judges.
No, because they expect the judges to have certain or
hand down certain decisions, rule in a certain way, vote in a certain way.
That goes along with the political ideology that represents each
political party.
Like let's not be stupid and let's not pretend otherwise.
I think that it's an annoying conversation,
an annoying debate that happens over and over again.
The one thing that's absolutely clear on both sides though is that they
tend to nominate Supreme Court justices who are pro corporate.
And if you notice the hearing so
far have not really delved into issues like money in politics.
Now let me tell you more about what Senator Mike Braun had to say,
Braun said the Supreme Court was wrong to legalize interracial marriage.
He said that, let me read it again.
Republican Senator Mike Braun from Indiana said the Supreme Court was wrong
to legalize interracial marriage referring to the 1967 Loving V Virginia decision.
Jackson, that's of course the judge who's undergoing these confirmation hearings.
Who would be the first black woman on the Supreme Court if confirmed,
is married to Dr Patrick Jackson, who is white.
So he was asked, Senator Braun was asked this, so you would be okay with
the Supreme Court leaving the issue of interracial marriage to the states?
Reporter asked Braun, yes, he replied 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.
That's fascinating, so maybe Mike Braun is having a little difficulty
understanding what the purpose of the Supreme Court is.
So the purpose of the Supreme Court is to weigh in on and decide whether or
not certain issues either are constitutional or unconstitutional.
Whether we're talking about legislation,
whether we're talking about I don't know Hobby Lobby deciding that it doesn't want
to provide health insurance that covers things like abortion or contraceptives.
Those are the kinds of things that the Supreme Court weighs on.
It is a system, is part of a system of checks and balances.
So if let's say a certain state decides to vote in favor of legislation
that does away with the civil liberties that Americans get to enjoy.
The Supreme Court is supposed to come in, here case involving that legislation and
decide whether or not it's constitutional.
So, I would argue that issues involving identity issues,
involving race have to do with our civil rights and
civil rights issues are protected under the constitution.
If you're passing legislation that treats certain groups
of people as second class citizens, then what does our constitution means?
What is it supposed to do?
I mean, are you supposed to have a system in place where we just decide.
All right, well, we don't like black people, we don't like gay people.
We don't like the, whatever group.
And so we're gonna treat them as second class citizens,
even though our constitution is supposed to protect everyone.
It's supposed to include everyone.
Those are rights that extend to every single American, right.
That's why the Supreme Court comes in.
Again, it's a system of checks and balances.
It is a civil rights issue, it is not a states rights issue, but
it doesn't matter.
Senator Braun said what he said, and in fact, he took things even further.
Let's watch the video.
>> 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 gonna be able to have your cake and
eat it too.
I think that's hypocritical.
>> About Griswold versus Connecticut.
>> Well, you can list a whole host of issues when it comes down to whatever
they are.
I'm gonna say that they're not gonna 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.
>> No, that's just it's the wrong interpretation.
And look, he knew what he was saying, he was abundantly clear there.
He wants to leave it up to the states because he wants to allow states to
ban interracial marriage.
Very similar to what we've seen with states outlawing abortion.
And we'll see how the Supreme Court weighs on that pretty soon.
Once they make a decision on the state of Texas and
how it has effectively banned abortion.
If they decide, no that law can stand, then it means it's up to the states to
decide whether or not they can just outright ban abortion that's terrifying.
The same thing would happen with other social issues,
including interracial marriage, if it were up to people like Mike Braun,
even though issues pertaining to race, our civil rights issues.
So, he also mentions the 1965 Griswold v Connecticut ruling,
which stop states from banning contraceptives.
So remember so called small government Republicans do not care at
all about keeping the government small.
They want government to be so big that they get in between you and
your doctor as a woman.
They want to make sure that government stands in the way of a woman making
a decision about her own body.
They want to get involved and ensure that if a woman happens to live in a red state
and that red state decides they want to ban not only abortion, but contraceptives,
they have the right to do it.
You as a woman, you have no agency over your body.
They get to decide it's a states rights issue for for them.
And after receiving some backlash Braun was like maybe I showed my hand too much,
maybe I need to walk it back a little bit.
But he knew what he was saying.
He thinks interracial marriages, a states rights issue.
He thinks contraceptives, states rights issue.
Nonetheless, he walked it back a little bit, but I'm not buying it at all.
He says, 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.
But hold on, it seems like you think it is up for debate.
It seems like you think that,
having the Supreme Court rule on something like that is hypocritical.
It's having your cake and eating it too.
Whatever that means.
Let me read the rest of his quote, and I condemn racism in any form at
all levels and by any states, entities or individuals.
Then why did you make a point about how states should be allowed to ban
interracial marriage?
Like where did that come from?
Are you walking this back simply because you're getting backlash?
And I would say the answer is yes.
But what's terrifying is he's not the only one, Marsha Blackburn,
another Republican senator who has asked clownish questions of judge Jackson
during the confirmation hearings.
Decided to put together a cutesy little video for
twitter where she listed Supreme Court rulings that she has a problem with.
And guess what came up again, let's watch.
>> Constitutionally unsound rulings like Griswold versus Connecticut,
Kelo versus City of New London and NFIB versus Sebelius.
Confused Tennessee and loved Congress wondering who gave
the court permission to bypass our system of checks and balances.
>> The Supreme Court is part of this system of checks and balances.
Listen, I know republicans are obsessed with gutting education.
I didn't realize that they gutted it so early on that Marsha Blackburn
doesn't understand simple doesn't even understand like the basics,
the simple basics of how our government works.
The Supreme Court comes in, let me just spell it out very clearly for
her and anyone else who might have difficulty understanding this.
They come in to deem legislation either constitutional or unconstitutional.
They interpret the constitution.
That's the whole point of the Supreme Court.
It is part of a system of checks and balances.
But the reality is they hate that system of checks and
balances when it's inconvenient for them.
So when the Supreme Court decides in the Griswold ruling that she also cited there.
When they decide that it's unconstitutional, they don't like that,
they wanna leave it up to the states to make a decision as to whether or
not a woman has access to birth control.
And look, I don't need to tell everyone that birth control is something that goes
beyond preventing a woman from getting pregnant.
Now that's the main purpose of birth control, but
women are prescribed birth control for a whole host of other health issues.
And guess what?
Those health issues are no one's business but her own and her doctors.
That's it, to have these goons get involved and tell a woman, not only that
she she needs to be forced to have a baby, that she doesn't want to have.
That she's a carry a baby for nine months because they want governments so
large that it makes those decisions for a woman.
The fact that they want to prevent a woman from being able to take birth controls.
This is who they are, this is what they want.
They want to take us back to the dark ages.
And part of it is just politically motivated.
Because what else are they gonna offer their constituents?
They're certainly not going to reform economic policy.
They're certainly not gonna make their own constituents hole as
they're struggling with poverty.
They got their corporate donors to look out after.
That's what they're concerned about.
So they gotta focus on the culture war issues and
they'll manufacture culture wars.
They'll dig deep into topics that have already been adjudicated over and
over and over again.
Whatever it takes to just distract from the fact that they've got nothing else to
offer their constituents.
The only problem is while they're doing this based on their political agenda
there, political aspirations, it has real consequences for people.
Women in Texas already experiencing those consequences, but
outlawing abortion is not enough for them.
They want to go further.
They want to get involved in who you can marry,
what kind of medication you can take.
And I think it's absolutely sickening that this confirmation hearing for
Judge Jackson has turned into the culture war circus that it has.
What a waste of time, just the types of questions that they're asking,
the types of things that they're fighting for.
It's just absolutely devastating.