Title: Loving v. Virginia
Product review: Have not read the book at all, but I just discovered while listening to oral argument in the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, that the Va. Asst. Atty. General used this book to justify a state's right to make interracial marriages illegal. He used this as part of his argument defending Virginia's law under the "rational basis" test, no less; the easiest level to lose on Constitutional grounds (for a controversial subject, that is; have to show that making the classification makes sense toward attaining some legitimate policy objective).Like the German lawyer in the film "Judgement at Nuremburg" cited Holmes in Buck v. Bell ("three generations of imbeciles is enough") to defend German judges' orders to sterilize people, this volume is likely useful at least as history of law and social science, showing us how completely wrong we have been, and the ability of courts to recognize that in real time.The Lovings won, after all.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
