I hope the Supreme Court also overturns loving v. Virginia, wouldn't you agree?

[Anonymous]

Colored women (even the Asian women) in the usa never mix with young slim shorter white guys anyway so criminalizing interracial marriage wouldn't really affect me anyhow, it probably won't happen but if it does I'm gonna celebrate and drink the tears of slags and soy boys.

[lightbulb27]

I don't see how banning interracial marriage is legal constitutionally. the whole idea of constituion is freedom, state doesn't have the right. there's fine lines. doubt it. that be a mess.

um... my Asian wife mixed with my skinny white me. so did another Asian I know.

maybe the supreme court could establish racial division, congress enact a special lab to make a human "super race", exterminate everyone else with a needle prick and chemicals from the air via CIA, and takeover the world?

[RolandCuthbert]

You do realize that Alito’s opinion put interracial marriage in extreme jeopardy. As he said abortion is not in the constitution. But of course, neither is interracial marriage and a bunch of other rights we have through amendments and court rulings. If the right was not explicitly granted originally by the constitution his opinion says it is in the purview of state.

[lightbulb27]

@RolandCuthbert I did not. "ending a life" is substantially different than allowing limiting two adults to chose life together. I suspect they have some common sense and aren't that biggoted... lets hope. one of the supreme courte's couldn't define a woman because she's not a biologist, so I don't see how they could define race to make such an opinion make sense.

[RolandCuthbert]

This is why I think you are not rational. Read the ruling. Alito's opinion says nothing about "life".

The ruling specifically states that a "state" has to determine whether or not this is legal. This is not a "Federal" issue. Alito stated, abortion is not a right granted specifically in the constitution. It must be decided at the state level. The supreme court can't make decisions like you or I. They must have a "legal" basis for their decisions. It can't be driven by emotion or religion. It has to use the law as its guide.

Because even in Roe vs. Wade, the ruling states that abortion had to be legal because of Roe needing consultation on whether or not her pregnancy would jeopardize her life. The ruling had nothing to do with the supposed choice a woman has when it comes to her body. Only that those decisions about abortion should be left up to her and her doctor.

So since the debate in law has only been about this being a right defined at the federal level, then of course every right at the federal level granted outside of the constitution can be sent back to the states. That's the point. Its funny how racism and sexism aren't really disciplines that are very accurate in their targeting. They always end up burning the very folks who are trying to spread it.

Clarence Thomas just gave racists the reasoning they need to end interracial marriage.

[lightbulb27]

@RolandCuthbert gotcha, theyd have to have a case to review, is there one? I don't know a single person that would support ending interracial marriage. I could see attacks on marriage as was broadened under Obama.
I'm not paying that much attention. Seems an over reaction to me.

[Asker]

Interracial marriage isn't in the constitution and pretty sure was banned at the birth of the country

[RolandCuthbert]

@lightbulb27 That makes nonsense. Most Americans support Roe V. Wade, but it was struck down. You are claiming the exception for interracial marriage should come from a poll. The Supreme Court didn't care about polls when it struck down Roe V. Wade. It claimed to care about the "law".

And again, this has nothing to do with interracial marriage per se. It has to do with whether or not there is an explicit right in the Constitution granting you the right to marry someone outside of your make-believe race. So the point would be, it would go back to the states. If your state allowed interracial marriage, you would be good. If it didn't. . . then you would be breaking the law.

This is rather simple.

[lightbulb27]

@RolandCuthbert yes... they could.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well you might get your own wish. But I am not sure what Clarence Thomas and Ginni will do. But it isn’t like they are folks who think rationally.