they said i had to leave the state. and what happened after that? i left. convicted on felony charges, they were banished from virginia but they fought back. number 395. richard perry loving and ap appellants versus virginia. they took the case to the suprem supreme court what is the damage? nine years after they wed in 19d 67, the lovings were finally vindicated. today the united states supreme court handed down a decision, the lovings ordeal is at least over. richard and mildrid won the
bret: chuck? i thought ever since the supreme court halfway signed off on the plan and at least let it take effect partially that he was heading towards some kind of partial victory at the supreme court. now with this version 3.0, i think his chances are improved. the suprem supreme court has cad off the hearing it was going to have october 10th. bret: delayed it? called for briefing to see if this whole issue has been mooted and so on and so forth. i think the big picture here is that he has climbed a long way down from where he was in january. and the issue as such has fizzled and lost a lot of its heat as a political matter. it s now going to be tied up in trench warfare in the courts. from that point of view i think his chances have improved. i agree god forbid one more attack this goes top of our conversation. knock on wood that we remain lucky. bret: or good. or both.
can be radicalized in europe and come over here very easily. there is a question about how effective it will be in the long run any way. bret: chuck? i thought ever since the supreme court halfway signed off on the plan and at least let it take effect partially that he was heading towards some kind of partial victory at the supreme court. now with this version 3.0, i think his chances are improved. the suprem supreme court has cad off the hearing it was going to have october 10th. bret: delayed it? called for briefing to see if this whole issue has been mooted and so on and so forth. i think the big picture here is that he has climbed a long way down from where he was in january. and the issue as such has fizzled and lost a lot of its heat as a political matter. it s now going to be tied up in trench warfare in the courts. from that point of view i think his chances have improved. i agree god forbid one more attack this goes top of
deprived of certain individuals because of the color of their skin or because of their sexual orientation. we do not permit discrimination in equality, that is why we have a 14th amendment that guarantees equal rights to all citizen. it is not judicial activism when the judges do what the constitution requires them to do and they follow the precedent of previous decisions of the supreme court. chris: but mr. olson, you have also said this judges should interpret the law not make it up, not create new rights that weren t there in the constitution. where is the right to you talk about the right to marriage, where is the right to same-sex marriage in the constitution? with where is the right to interracial marriage in the constitution, chris? the suprem supreme court said t marriage the right to marry a person of your choice is the right of liberty, association
nice that they were able to keep a positive attitude with some of the unexpected. great to see that. he was martyred so he has been martyred twice now i guess. and responder resurrection n easter sunday so there is hope for all of us. thanks. up next, the implications of a justice stevens retirement. is it just around the corner? how it impacts the supreme court, right after the break.