Republican Senator questions Loving vs Virginia

Post Reply New Topic

From a personal perspective, it IMO is not surprising that this moron wants certain laws overturned despite the fact that such laws have been in place for various amounts of time.

My mom arrived in the US from her native land in Central America in 1980. When she met the paternal side of the family (all are white) treated her like dirt because she spoke no English, had little to no understanding of American cultures, and believed at the time that perfectionism from her native land was the right way to cope with moving to the US.

She became a US citizen when she married three years later in 1983.

The only truly logical explanation, excepting corruption behind the scenes, is that the two parties are in cahoots with each other, and the goal appears to be to get everyone to vote liberal so that we end up with the U.S. government being mostly in control of the Democratic party next election, and well, it's working.

I think the idea that we have only one viable party speaks to the fact that we need major reform in the politics of this country, though. Of course, the people who can hold on to power through keeping it the same way will probably strongly object.

This is just my opinion, though. I don't know enough about politics to give what some would consider an informed opinion.

Cases like Loving and Obergefeld are easy distinguished from Duffy in that not only have they been relied on for decades, but that each act of reliance continues to be irrevocably integrated into the fabric of our society. Stare decisis may not have won out in Duffy, but most likely will win out in these others. How do you tell people that have been legally married for 60 years their marriage is no longer legal? You can't without severe disruption to generations of families and an impossible legal tangle running into multiple facets of law. I haven't read Kavanaugh's concurring Duffy opinion, but according to a pair of conservative podcast lawyers I follow, he signaled quite strongly that he would not let the court proceed to apply the same logic to cases that have had a deeper and more lingering affect on individual decisions. The ramifications of overturning a case like Loving are why stare decisis exists.