Interracial marriage not likely in legal jeopardy

Stare decisis is not a term for “historic decisions that deserve judicial reverence.” Stare decisis is Latin for “let the decision stand” and applies to any decision of any court, particularly appellate opinions. It has been the seminal philosophy and core of Anglo-American common law since 1066. The “foundational basis” for Roe v. Wade was the right to privacy found in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment as announced in Griswold v. Connecticut. If you read the 14th Amendment you won’t read the word “privacy” anywhere. As one contemporary commentator said of Griswold, the Court found a “p” in the First Amendment, an “r” in the Second, etc., etc., until they spelled “privacy.”

The “foundational basis” for Loving v. Virginia, on the other hand, was the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment which is, in fact, spelled out in black and white would likely be unaffected by any ruling in Dobbs v. Women’s Health (“Michelle Deal-Zimmerman: Don’t be surprised when Supreme Court comes for interracial marriage,” May 10).

Perhaps there are antiquated laws against interracial marriage still technically on the books, but unlike the current case before the Supreme Court which concerned the constitutionality of a Mississippi law, no state has passed any recent laws or attempted to prohibit the practice in anyway. Suggesting SCOTUS will come for interracial marriage is no more than argumentum ad absurdum and is not worthy of printing. Whatever side you are on in the abortion debate, is it too much to ask that we limit ourselves to reasoned opinion and not propaganda and scare tactics?

— Robert L. Sova, Churchville