Posts
The birdcage liner known as The New York Times' editorial board came up with the imbecilic idea that somehow the potential end to the Roe v. Wade decision would morph into states criminalizing interracial marriage. The braintrusts said that some states "probably wouldn't" permit such a union between two people.
I better tell my Indian wife that it's over and we have to put the kids back inside.
"Imagine that every state were free to choose whether to allow Black people and white people to marry," the racists on the board wrote [capitalizing 'Black' but using lower case for 'white']. "Some states would permit such marriages; others probably wouldn’t. The laws would be a mishmash, and interracial couples would suffer, legally consigned to second-class status depending on where they lived."
"Imagine that every state were free to choose whether to allow Black people and white people to marry," the racists on the board wrote [capitalizing 'Black' but using lower case for 'white']. "Some states would permit such marriages; others probably wouldn’t. The laws would be a mishmash, and interracial couples would suffer, legally consigned to second-class status depending on where they lived."
What part of their anus did they pull that idea out of?
The board noted the 1967 ruling by the SCOTUS that said banning interracial marriage was a violation of the 14th amendment. The piece also said that Alabama did not remove the law from their books until 2000.
The board noted the 1967 ruling by the SCOTUS that said banning interracial marriage was a violation of the 14th amendment. The piece also said that Alabama did not remove the law from their books until 2000.
The authors argued that the Supreme Court "exists to protect those rights when state and local authorities refuse to," referring to the leaked Supreme Court opinion from Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which seemed to signal the court was getting ready to overturn Roe v. Wade. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's draft opinion was first published by Politico on May 2.
The authors are wrong: the Supreme Court exists to interpret the laws as they are written. They do not answer to social pressure and, as previously stated, protesting at the homes of SCOTUS justices is illegal.
The board conflated the idea that leaving matters like interracial marriage or abortion to the states means that "millions of Americans will be denied their fundamental rights."
The draft opinion simply said that "it is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives." The Roe v. Wade decision was unconstitutional in the first place.
Nate Hochman, an ISI fellow at the National Review, responded to the editorial board's piece on Twitter:
"I'm sorry but which state in America would actually opt to ban interracial marriage in the Year Of Our Lord 2022."AGHamilton29 responded to Hochman's tweet saying that the assertion was "insane," and that it was a "direct result of NYT pretending the people they disagree with politically are racist. A link to a Gallup poll from 2021 was provided and found 94% of Americans approved of interracial marriage, compared to just 4% of people that supported a ban in 1958.
* * *
Sex. Now that I have your attention: for more hard-hitting content, and a few soft-hitting ones too, subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against John Kerry's global warming, the heebie-jeebies and the dreaded omicron.
* * *
"NYT editorial on Roe v. Wade begins by falsely claiming states today would ban interracial marriage," D.C. Examiner reporter Jerry Dunleavy wrote. "A desperate slippery slope argument & a ridiculous comparison, because marrying the person you love & killing an innocent unborn child are hardly similar."
Why is the NY Times still in business?
No comments:
Post a Comment