“And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” quoth Justice Samuel “Angry White Man Sam” Alito in his draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade and ending women’s nationwide right to an abortion. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” But we at the Department of Heartless Satire have obtained ANOTHER draft opinion he is circulating, with enthusiastic support from Justices Handmaid, Beer, and Nonesuch, as well as Chief Justice John “The Fascist with a Human Face” Roberts, and alas…
We hold that Loving v. Virginia must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to interracial marriage, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Loving now chiefly rely—the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Those provisions have been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted)
The right to interracial marriage does not fall within this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made miscegenation a crime. The interracial marriage right, like the former right to an abortion that we overruled in Dobbs v. Mississippi Department of Health, is also critically different from the other rights that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “liberty,” and that we have not yet gotten around to striking down. Loving‘s defenders characterize the interracial marriage right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations and contraception, which are next on our list, but interracial marriage is fundamentally different, because it destroys the fundamental natural hierarchy of the races.
Stare decisis does not compel unending adherence to Loving’s abuse of judicial authority. Loving was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the miscegenation issue, Loving hasenflamed debate and deepened division. Just look at what happened when that mixed-race guy was president!
It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of interracial marriage to the people’s elected representatives in heavily gerrymandered states, and such worthies as Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.). That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand. Sorry, Ginni Thomas, but you are guilty of race-treason.