Today in Supreme Court History: April 10, 1967

4/10/1967: Loving v. Virginia argued.

Comments

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

An important step on clingers' necks in the culture war. Remarkably recent . . . a vivid example of how much progress the liberal-libertarian mainstream has shaped against lesser preferences during my lifetime.

[DaivdBehar]

This self evident abomination of a law was an all Democrat lawyer affair. They could not read the 8th grade language of the Equal Protection Clause. Artie, every social pathology, weird political anomaly, catastrophic policy has been 100% the fault of the lawyer profession. This is the most toxic occupation in our nation, 10 times more toxic, deadly and costly than organized crime. Al Capone would not have enacted this blatant violation of the constitution.

[DaivdBehar]

Most of the Justices were Eisenhower Republicans, of course.

[Queen Amalthea]

Lol, Al Capone made his living violating a Constitutional provision. Raving loon.

[Queen Amalthea]

"This self evident abomination of a law was an all Democrat lawyer affair. "

The chief lobby for the enactment of the law was William Plecker, a physician, head of the Anglo Saxon Clubs of America (a white supremacist group founded by a musician and a preacher).

Madman.

[DaivdBehar]

Queenie. You sound upset. Try to calm down. Have a blessed day.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sorry, Queen Amalthea, William Plecker was with the eugenics movement which was the Democrats -- it came out of the progressive movement.

The son of a Confederate veteran, Plecker wouldn't have gotten/held the position he did (1912-1946) if he hadn't been a Democrat.

And while you are righy about the AngloSaxon Club being racist, the reason for it was Eugenics -- the same reason he outlawed mixed marriage.

[DaivdBehar]

Queenie is a denier. It does not argue in good faith.

[Queen Amalthea]

Sorry Ed, but eugenics was a bi-partisan affair.

http://reader.library.cornell.edu/docviewer/digital?id=hearth6417403_1366_002#page/15/mode/1up

[Dr. Ed 2]

And there were a lot of Republicans being appointed to state-wide offices in Virginia in 1912.

Can you name one???

[Dan Schiavetta]

Mention this case to Clarence Thomas and he will, by the laws of matter and antimatter, self-annihilate in a flash of pure energy, leaving no trace.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You realize how racist that sentence is, don't you?

[CJColucci]

Do you realize how pertinent it is? Under what Justice Thomas thinks of as his theories, Loving was necessarily wrongly decided, and the Commonwealth of Virginia would be entitled even today to prosecute him and his wife for violating the law wrongly, as he sees it, struck down in Loving.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Quite so.

[Cal Cetín]

So self-evident as not to need any citation?

[Dan Schiavetta]

The unanimous opinion in Loving was based on an Equal Protection analysis that Thomas has consistently rejected.

I honestly don't think Thomas can stand to look at that decision. Unless he and his wife get some kind of exhilaration out of living a life that each thinks should be illegal.

For a painful experience, see him try to claim (in Obergefell) that the case was not about interracial marriage but cohabitation. ("Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967) , for example, involved a couple who was criminally prosecuted for marrying in the District of Columbia and cohabiting in Virginia".) Ironically in his dissent he talks about people having "dignity" but he himself continually debases himself before the racists (closet or otherwise) who put him on the Court and now cheer his jurisprudence.

[Cal Cetín]

You haven't provided any evidence, simply a series of tired progressive talking points which any random "NPC" could spout.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You haven't listened to a word I said.

Go read Loving, then go read Obergefell. End of conversation.

[Cal Cetín]

The post refers to Loving v. Virginia, and your response is "Clarence Thomas married a white woman! I sense racism!" And no doubt you do.

[Dan Schiavetta]

My comment was based on a re-reading of Loving and Thomas’s deliberate mischaracterization of it in Obergefell, which reminded me of the mischaracterization of Brown v. Board of Education that Strom Thurmond tended to make in his later years. I suggest you educate yourself by reading those two cases and look up Thurmond’s comments.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Surprisingly, no vile racial slur in this exchange yet.

That makes it one complete day without gratuitous publication of a vile racial slur by this conservative blog.

Congratulations, I guess.