IAOKIYAAPWAD!

(it’s all okay if you are a politician wearing a diaper)

More know-nothing stupidity from the know-nothing factory.

And note, please, that the questioner was kind enough to explain to the senator what the case was about—this was not an unfair “gotcha” question in which Vitter couldn’t remember the case name (although the case name, of course, is the easiest to remember in all of jurisprudence).

I mean, seriously?  The GOP is so far off the tracks that a Senator can’t even admit that he knows what Loving v. Virginia is?  Let alone offer an opinion on it?  Seriously?  Yet more evidence that the writers of the Onion will soon be joining the ranks of the unemployed.

He should have gone with the Scalia/Rehnquist standby: IT WAS A WRONG DECISION MADE BY ACTIVIST LIBERALS WHO LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH.

Come on, they have to deny Loving. The case is absolute that the right to marriage lies with the individual, that it is a fundamental right, and that it is absolutely not acceptable to limit people to only be marrying “people like themselves” even if that applies to everyone. There is no reasonable interpretation of Loving which excludes gay marriage.

But they can’t say that Loving was wrong, because it declares officially that the GOP position is that straight people don’t have the fundamental right to marry who they choose.

Loving is the wedge that explodes their claim that marriage is central to keeping America alive but gay people are the biggest threat it faces.

This is another example of “I’ll only tell you the truth you need to hear.”

Geesh, didn’t the SUPREME COURT decide this 42.5 years ago ... and Vitter’s opinion matters why?

David Vitter, playing stupid?  I am shocked.  Shocked, I tell you.

Diaper Dave is going to give that canned “I haven’t reviewed the case” answer to any SCOTUS case he doesn’t have a stack of GOoPer propaganda to harpoon with.  All we’ve managed to prove here is that the guy continues to be full of shit.

I might believe he didn’t know if he hadn’t graduated from Tulane. If he went to Liberty University law school like Virginia’s new governor, then I’d buy it. Any legal decision that doesn’t fit neatly into right wing ideology probably isn’t taught there.

Oh, give the guy a break. If he answers questions like this, the next thing you know, people will be placing him in impossible dilemmas by asking for his views on Brown v. Board of Education or the 13th Amendment.

As always with modern conservatives, it comes down to a simple question: liar or deluded/stupid? And as always with Diaper Dave, it’s hard to tell.

But they can’t say that Loving was wrong, because it declares officially that the GOP position is that straight people don’t have the fundamental right to marry who they choose.

No, it declares officially that the GOP is racist.  They’ve been tapdancing around that shit for decades.

This reminds me when Bush said he disagreed with the Dred Scott decision, a clear dog whistle and a clear admission that Republicans don’t give a shit about judicial activism.  I’m no lawyer, but it seems like Dred Scott was properly decided in a strictly legal sense.  SCOTUS would’ve had to employ judicial activism to decide it any other way.  The “right” to own slaves was effectively enshrined in the Constitution for fuck’s sake.

This reminds me when Bush said he disagreed with the Dred Scott decision…

Let no one say the man was afraid to take tough stands.

Louisiana being one of the states whose law was overturned by Loving, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if Vitter knew exactly what it was & just pleaded ignorance for lack of an answer that wouldn’t endanger his reelection chances.  Alienate moderates, or the anti-Loving vote - which is riskier in Louisiana, anybody know?

For a Republican, I mean.

Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance. I really think Vitter is so ignorant of American history he didn’t know what Loving was about.

Where he went to school has nothing to do with how smart he is. See: George W. Bush and Harvard, George Allen and UVA, and many other examples.

So this fucker isn’t familiar with the arguments for letting me and my wife get married? Nice. And here I thought it was the homosexual agenda that was threatening my marriage. Turns out, it’s the traditional marriage crowd that’s far more of a threat. Big surprise.

Geesh, didn’t the SUPREME COURT decide this 42.5 years ago ... and Vitter’s opinion matters why?

(1) Because the context is Vitter being asked about a present-day incident in his home state, in which a judge was violating Loving by refusing to marry biracial couples.

(2) Because Loving is a precedent that teaches a great deal about how our constitution works—basic knowledge which ought to be possessed by a senator, or a lawyer.

(3) Because it’s difficult to imagine anyone not a racist thinking Loving was wrongly decided.

(4) Because the constitutionality of Vitter’s position on the rather topical issue of gay marriage turns, to a considerable extent, on Loving

There is no reasonable interpretation of Loving which excludes gay marriage.

Key term being reasonable. However, the unreasonable interpretation has been upheld by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson, and the Supreme Court said that Baker didn’t have a Federal constitutional question - i.e. that equal protection under the 14th Amendment and due process under the 5th weren’t implicated by a refusal to allow gay marriage.
Now, mind you, this was in the late 70s, and the classification is certainly more suspect now.

Now, now, people—this question isn’t as easy for someone like Vitter as it would be for us.

For one thing, the case probably didn’t ring a bell for him, in the same way you and I probably aren’t acquainted with, say, the wetness indicators in adult Depends.

For another, when he says he’d have to read it, he doesn’t just mean he’d have to Google it and pass his eyeballs over it the way you and I would.

For Vitter, any actual reading would be totally dispensable. The critical part of “having to read it” (as Vitter puts it) is having to find another Republican who’s heard of the decision—in fact, preferably several and preferably high in the GOP leadership—so they can tell him what his opinion of Loving is.

Geesh, didn’t the SUPREME COURT decide this 42.5 years ago ... and Vitter’s opinion matters why?

Ms Kate, do you by any chance access Pandagon on a public computer? For the past couple of days your account has been making comments that don’t seem like you.

We already know what the Republican Party thinks of Loving from their facebook page.

I would like to recommend that all interviews with this individual be started with the waving of a Diaper, remember this guy is from the south short on brains long on Ignorance and Hatred.

Myself a Lawyer who has have had to study this case feigning Ignorance ( no surprise there look at the party he belongs to) on a case of National prominence doesn’t know. other then lies, fear Mongering Hatred and Twisting the truth what good is this MORON.

One reader commented this is important why, maybe because this Clown espouses so much misinformation and that as part of his education as a Lawyer it would be important and he doesn’t know, I know it wasn’t a HOOKER question or a Diaper preference question. Man the south leaves a LOT to be desired with the CLOWNS they have for leaders. Talk about sucking hind teat on a Boar Hog these guys are the Masters WOW!

I’m still (believe it or not) shocked that idiots like Vitter can hold a job, much less convince people to elect them to public office.

ProudLiberal;

While I don’t like Vitter any more than you do, please know that there are many smart, intelligent, liberal people in the South. Don’t ASSume he’s a jackass because he’s from Louisiana.

Now, mind you, this was in the late 70s, and the classification is certainly more suspect now.

Actually, early 1970s. The state Supreme Court decided it in 1971. The first wave of lawsuits (which also included Singer in WA) pretty much ended in 1977 in Kentucky.  After that, the legal mvmt for full marriage pretty much ended until the HI case, which none of the national legal groups would touch. (Keep this in mind. Baker was decided before any national LGBT legal groups existed. Groups like Lambda in NY State and GLAD in MA actually had to sue to overturn rules that said openly gay law groups couldn’t exist due to sodomy laws, etc.)