41.5 F
Indianapolis
Friday, March 29, 2024

Boyd: Braun puts his foot in his mouth

More by this author

Oh, Sen. Mike Braun, what are we going to do with you?

On March 22, Braun held a press call where he discussed the hearings of Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson and judicial activism ā€” especially as it relates to the conservative go-to issue of the last four decades, Roe v. Wade.

Braun said he believed the U.S. Supreme Court overstepped in Roe v. Wade and shouldā€™ve let individual states determine the legality of abortion. He said judicial activism is the culprit for this ruling. Braunā€™s whole premise is based on his assumption that Indiana wouldā€™ve banned abortions if given the choice. While that is likely the case, it isnā€™t a certainty. Letā€™s just say Braunā€™s imaginary utopia went all wrong and Indiana legalized abortion. In this alternate reality, Braun would then argue the Supreme Court needs to step in and outlaw abortions across the nation. He would want judicial activism when it favors his point of view.

This isnā€™t the world we live in, though, and abortion is legal, so Iā€™ll get back to the point of this column and how Braun made a fool of himself.

During the call, Times of Northwest Indiana reporter Dan Carden followed up with a logical question after Braun said states should have the right to make such decisions. Carden asked if Braun felt the same way about Loving v. Virginia, which outlawed banning interracial marriage in this country.

Well, this is where Braun put his entire foot in his mouth.

ā€œWhen it comes to issues, you canā€™t have it both ways,ā€ Braun said. ā€œWhen 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. Itā€™s the beauty of the system, and thatā€™s where the differences among points of view in our 50 states ought to express themselves.ā€

About five hours later, Braun backtracked, saying he ā€œmisunderstood a line of questioning that ended up being about interracial marriage.ā€ I listened to the question more than once, and I watched Braun give a response more than once. It didnā€™t look like a misunderstanding occurred. He didnā€™t seem confused. He didnā€™t ask for the question to be repeated. He seemed confident in his answer. The reporter followed up with another question along the same line. ā€œSo, you would be OK with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states?ā€

Braun, again looking clear-eyed and very confident in his answer, said, ā€œYes. I think that thatā€™s something that if youā€™re not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, youā€™re not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too. I think thatā€™s hypocritical.ā€

Carden then asked about another case, Griswold vs. Connecticut.

Braun said, ā€œWell, you can list a whole host of issues. When it comes down to whatever they are, Iā€™m going to say that theyā€™re not going to all make you happy within a given state, but weā€™re better off having states manifest their points of view rather than homogenizing it across the country as Roe v. Wade did.ā€

Again, Braun didnā€™t seem confused to me.

This is what happens when you make things an absolute ā€” you make a fool out of yourself. You donā€™t have any wiggle room to adjust when it makes sense.

But you know what? I believe Braun spoke his truth. He doesnā€™t believe the Supreme Court shouldā€™ve ruled on interracial marriage. The conservative argument for statesā€™ rights is older than their argument against abortion. If I was playing the drinking game where I had to take a shot every time I heard statesā€™ rights or abortion from a conservative, Iā€™d never be sober. If I had a nickel for every time those words were uttered, Iā€™d never be poor.

What I want to know from Braun is what cases should the Supreme Court take and rule on? Why do we even have a Supreme Court? If we left everything up to states, itā€™s possible we would have states where ā€œseparate but equalā€ would still be the law of the land.

But maybe Braun would be OK with that.

By the way, why even have senators at the federal level creating legislation for the entire country? Doesnā€™t that interfere with statesā€™ rights, Sen. Braun? What would your job be then?

- Advertisement -
ads:

Upcoming Online Townhalls

- Advertisement -

Subscribe to our newsletter

To be updated with all the latest local news.

Stay connected

1FansLike
1FollowersFollow
1FollowersFollow
1SubscribersSubscribe

Related articles

Popular articles

EspaƱol + Translate Ā»
Skip to content