[applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] thank you and good evening. We call ourselves the bard association. It tries to have lawyers do something more productive than what they do usually do to support the theater in all kinds of ways. As you know, the theater performance that we are using the stage for is based on the text of William Shakespeares 12 night. You have seen Ethan Mcsweeney do so many good performances. [applause] it, athave not seen least twice you will can sitter coming in. It is not about the time it reconciliationax to occur. After a shipwreck, or a plane incident stranded on the coast , the a lot and sebastian become separated. To become a page. With lotrio who is really the a but finds out that there is an identical sebastian who she can love just as much. Are you following all of this . Play is where identity, passion, and gender all threaten to become undone. Characters pretending to be people they are not. Saying things they do not mean. Plotting to advance themselves at the advance of other things. Way that others think of us in washington dc. The issue isd now, will music beat the food of love. Be enough to hold them in holy matrimony. At the conclusion of tonights argument, you will be asked as we always ask you to be the jury. To answer the following questions. Should of the via and sebastians marriage be annulled . Please voteve yes, with the blue token. If you believe the marriage , vote not be annulled with your red token. Now it is my extraordinary honor and pleasure to introduce the participants of the mark pryor. Marshalleme court pamela token. [applause] and counsel for the petitioner olivia. [applause] and counsel dan webb with matthew carter. [applause] calling to order the marshall we will welcome the bench for tonight. The Supreme Court will be chief judge merrick garland. Judgethomas griffins and cut time the brown jackson. [applause] they will be here in a minute. Please enjoy the trial. [gavel] all rise. Oh yeah a, oea, oh yeah a. The Supreme Court is now in session. Please be seated. [applause] thank you mr. Chief justice and may it please the court. Olivia or not to be leave olivia. That is the question. My client tell in love with one person. She was tricked into marrying another. When she realized that she had been married to a stranger she sought annulment. Thatower courts denied her relief. It is only available when one behavior has been duped. There is ample evidence that sebastians Deceptive Behavior induced olivia to marry him. First sets eyes on olivia, she called him her dears is reo. People do go by different names. For instance when she is kicking it with her homeys, justice by theer ginsburg goes notorious rbg. Tag, i as her graffiti dissent. Recordhing in this supports that sebastian ever went by the name cesario and yet he stayed silent. He thinks to himself that there is something in it disabled. He has a another chance to set things straight right before the the wedding. Olivia asked him point blank. My most jealous and ever. Oubtful soul may live at peace there is his opportunity break there. In the record to say look, this has been great. It is not you, its me. [laughter] because its not me. Its you are clearly in love with a different me. But he doesnt say any of that. Instead what he says is, having sworn truth i ever will be true. Not deceiveys i did her. I used my name during the wedding. Truth that north the olivia was highly distracted. She had arranged for a little neighboring the country of colorado to create a , highlyl, artistic wedding. E food for the the guy never showed up. Loyal servant her who is an ill tempered man prancing around the patio in yellow stockings. He brown hair and hazel eyes. [laughter] can i ask. I am a little worried about the implications of this argument for misrepresentation or miss understanding. You realize this is Twelfth Night which is 12 nights after christmas. Therefore winter is coming. [laughter] john snowmean that will not be able to marry dineros because, he is not his son . We could be in a lot of trouble. I am really upset about that spoiler alert. Like, have not watched that part. Thanks for that. [laughter] if we aree answer is talking about mistaken identities, we are talking about mistaken names. This is one of sebastians arguments. Because he used his real name at the wedding she was on notice that he was not who she thought he was. Commentator put it, that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. I want to be sure i understand the facts of this case. If the priest shows up in drag sebastian and apologizes for her haste, that according to contractt she makes a byeternal love to firm mutual joining of hands, attested by the holy coils of blips, strengthened by the interchanging of rings, during which sebastian declares i, sebastian, take the olivia as my wedded wife. You want us to believe that olivia did not know what you was getting into . [laughter] olivia may have been a tad impetuous in proposing the marriage. But to be very clear, olivia was not looking for love. Love found her. She had sworn off all suitors for seven years. She had deleted her profile from tender. She had stopped surfing farmers comy. At tim dn and not situation. [laughter] brief does not focus on olivia. It focuses on sebastian hearing you say sebastian engaged in deceit. That is too harsh. He identified himself why name in the ceremony. It just turned out to be different. He turned out to be different than olivia thought. How is that any different than a husband finding out after the is ang that his wife Justin Bieber fan . And that wouldnt be grounds for annulment. Well maybe that would. Right beepertally into the prenup. The difference is there is a difference between a different name and a different person. This is not if you imagine a situation where joe dimaggio is at the altar with Marilyn Monroe and she calls herself normal gene. He is not going to walk away because he knows he is still marrying Marilyn Monroe. This is like great Britains King Edward marrying bart simpson instead of wallis simpson. [laughter] of your brief, you argue that sebastian agreed to marry olivia to claim immigration benefits. Sebastian had no other rational reason to accept olivias proposal. Are you aware that the role of by tellingclaimed carter and michelle pfeiffer. No other rational reason . [laughter] maybe he just on for ae it was so royal to fall in love with a foreign actor . [applause] [laughter] issue prince harry may have an issue about this. Fair enough. Here is what i would say about that. To the point about sebastian not having a different reason for marrying her other than the fact that he needed to claim citizenship, i think that is exactly what was going on. You have a situation where olivia fell in love with someone completely different. Someone who will her and one her. Yada yada yada. The only thing sebastian said to her. The first thing hes dead is i will. This is not the person that she thought. It is very clear what his thought process was. Olivia,s ashore, sees she proposes marriage to him, and he says i am not throwing away my shots. I am not throwing away my shot. I swim to this country. Im young, soggy, and hungry. [laughter] that is what he is thinking. [applause] what i dont understand is your timing. Why would your client want to annul the marriage right now . I hear the tax benefits will be in or miss for two wealthy people getting married in 2018. She should just hang on, dont you think . Im not really sure how that whole thing is going to shake out. [laughter] with justroblem to get back to the immigration argument and the argument is that because sebastian was protected by the deferred action castawaysxiways act. He did not need to marry her hastily because he was protected by that. To, daca might not be able sebastian at all. He is the known associate of antonio. But i dont really understand why would anyone want to be a citizen of elyria. You have this guy running around with yellow stockings, people are drinking and quaffing. Sebastian says is everyone mad here . That sounds nice to me actually. So i want to ask you a hypothetical. This is a real hypothetical. [laughter] if judge Jackson Falls in love with judge griffiths yellow stockings and then she decides to marry the next strange stout smiling fellow who shows up in yellow stockings because he reminds her of judge griffiths, is judge griffiths really to blame if it doesnt work out . Maybe olivia just have a type . Judge griffiths can carry off the yellow much better than malvolio can. But the problem is she married a stranger. She thought she was in love with one person and thought to was marrying that person. I will tell you, this jurisdiction has had this issue before. N lady ricky spears duchess of fresno accidentally marry that guy at that drive. Hrough thing in las vegas this court permitted her to a note that union. Her only defense was groups, i did it again. Argument seems to be look what you made me do. [laughter] but, miss stetson he did identify himself as sebastian. Said, whoucho marx are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes . But i think that gets back to the rose point. The idea that he identifies himself as sebastian only put her on notice that this person that she loves also went by the name sebastian. Its kind of a potato potato thing. I prefer tomato tomato. My mistake i will correct the record. The issue here is not that she was marrying someone with a different name. This is not the Marilyn Monroe situation. This is the art simpson situation. That is the very different situation. Isnt our standard much higher than that. Givingt go around annulments like oprahs favorite things. You get an annulment and you get an annulment. [applause] [laughter] thats a fair point. I will promise that i wont be here again asking for another annulment on behalf of anyone else for a very long time am i hope. But let me make one other point. This is a textual point. He makes the point that you leery and statutes use the word procure and because he did not affirmatively go get anything, therefore he could not have obtained the marriage by fraud. Law is based on the shakespearean constitution, uniteds similar to the states constitution but with ological in it. It simply means achieve. Three times in taming of the shrew. Once in othello. N if you that a serious research. We dont do that here. [laughter] it is interesting to me that abandon anemed to argument on the troubling issue of the fact that he identified himself as sebastian during the wedding ceremony. Relied on an, you article in psychology today remember this . Thatderline the fact olivia heard him identify himself as sebastian. We are not interested in andological gobble the duke we are not interested in gook. Logical gobledy now i am. Before i abandoned it altogether. If you could just wrap this up. You are slightly over time. Let me end with this then. I would ask you simply in the words of sir mitch mcconnell. To of the ucky of kent, say yes i believe the woman. [applause] i hope you have a good comeback. Is dan webb. I would like to thank the mock trial fact committee. This is the first time a chicago trial lawyer has actually been given facts that can establish innocence. We have never had that happen. [laughter] by the way, i think there are i am given three minutes before you interrupt me, is that right . Im counting. So first of all, two reasons why you cannot annul this marriage under the law. There is aelyria statute we are dealing with. Re inside the beltway . Says a person who procures a marriage and then uses fraud in that procurement, a marriage could be annulled. I use the word procure because if you just think about it for one minute, what is the evidence that my client procured the marriage. Procured meaning i definition that he actually instituted a out and get a certain result from her. Walkings are, my guys down the street and olivia. Up by chicago en against. Chicago hooligans. Olivia shows up and says to him you must come to my house. She says it twice. Here is this beautiful, gorgeous, woman with this charming personality who says you must come to my house. Of course he comes to her house at that point in time. She walks in with a priest and says if your intentions are honorable, marry me. He says well, i fell in love with you because love at first sight and you are beautiful. She brings a priest into her room and they get married. Where does the word procure mean that my client did anything to procure that marriage. Therefore, if you follow the statute, you dont need to get , becauseissue of fraud my client didnt even procure a marriage under any circumstance. So we went under the statute. [laughter] we do. If you follow that law but we dont have to if you dont want to. If you want to follow that statute, then my client prevails in this case. I say that to you as jurors. Think about that when you deliberate. [laughter] heres what i dont understand. I have never understood this case in this sense. Olivias theory now i am entitled to interrupt you. [laughter] this is the part i dont understand about your argument. Why did sebastian want to stay married to someone who doesnt love him . Since we are quoting songs, if you love her, let her go. That song does not apply to someone in sebastians Financial Condition in life. [laughter] when he is about to marry a beautiful woman, she brought to her house this gorgeous, wonderful house. By the way, one of the fallacies sebastian clearly knew Something Weird was going on here. He knew Something Weird was going on. But he did not know what they claim in this case. They claim that because olivia was actually in love with my clientherefore should have straightened out this whole mess in her mind. When fact, my client did not know who cesario was and did not know anything about her behavior pattern over time as far as how she was dressed and deceiving other people. He knew nothing about that. How could my client have straightened out olivias misconception when he himself did not even possess the facts. How could your client have married her . Who in their right mind agrees to be married after only 20 lines in a shakespeare play . Thats a good question, your honor. It,ough, if you think about according to the facts, men fall in love with this woman continually. At the drop of the hat. For no reason whatsoever. My client has testified that that happen to him. Love at first sight. Admittedly, he found out she was wealthy and had a station in life that might make him better off if he will that plan. But that is not fraud. Youre not going to annul a marriage because my client actually saw that he was getting some benefit out of this arrangement. There is no basis to annul the marriage. Webb, i have a question about our jurisdiction . Im a trial lawyer. [laughter] [applause] you still have to answer my question. [laughter] so your client claims he is a and a savingnd influence on olivias life. But to me, sorting out this marital dispute sounds like a political question. Possiblycan the courts develop a judicially manageable family for successful marriage. You see the woman over there with the beautiful white hair . She and i have been happily trying to figure that out for 53 years and we still dont have an answer. I dont have an answer. [applause] your honor, i dont actually have any way to answer that question. Thever, since that is not law that we are supposed to follow in this case, since were supposed to be following this pesky little statute here i was asking you a jurisdictional question. That ichief judge said as a trial lawyer do not have to address that. Can you at least produce the long for marriage license . [laughter] i cannot produce that, your honor. One thing that is interesting about this case is that if this high court in elyria is concerned about whether there is any equity or lack of equity in this case, if you think about it, both sides to this bargain actually got the benefit they were seeking. Number one, there is no question that olivia wanted to end up viola the male version of which happened to be sebastian who was her brother. She got exactly what you wanted in this bargain. Its interesting that you should talk about gender. Im trying to figure out what it has to do with this. Record is clear that the Lower Court Judges who ruled in your clients favor work quote all mail. Lower, weinstein, so what do we take away from that . We did like the choice of the trial judges. We were very pleased with that although we are confident that this panel here by the way i dont know, i tried to resist myself several times over. I dont know what the role of gender has to do with this case. Im very confused about that. By the way, did my client get some benefit out of this bargain . In facts say well, he fell love with her, it was love at first sight, yes but he got a benefit. In his station of life, through a rash decision, when you could judge and say why would anybody judge and make a decision in 30 minutes to marry anybody . Have you seen the bachelor . Yes. , he actuallyhe way had a motive to increase his station in life by marrying a beautiful woman, a magnetic personality, very wealthy, does that mean he committed fraud just because he wanted that that fell into his lap that they . And by the way, under the facts of the case, he felt confused that night. He actually count confused. He had no idea that there was anything in her mind that he could straighten out. He did not know about these facts. Under fraud, under the law of fraud so he thought that she just liked him at first sight to . To ont he testified seriously . In the play itself it says he is confused. He wasnt quite sure why she was proposing. We saw the video tape about two weeks ago in this very area. This guy is no ryan gosling. Anyonekes him think that would fall in love with him . Lets just assume thats correct. Your honor, that is correct. She would have had no reason to believe a woman with that station in life would have anything to do with him. Where is the fraud . He announced himself as named sebastian. No way. As aaron burr would say, none of us were in the room when it happened. [laughter] the transcript by mr. Shakespeare does not include that fact. Have beennd you provided that but since we are not on the wire, we do not actually know what was said. Why should we believe that he actually had sebastian . Because your group year gave me those facts and told me that i was sworn under duty to follow those facts. Mr. Webb, i hate to do this but i have a serious question for you. Maybe i will never get invited back, but heres my serious question. You say that sebastian is not in the marriage for money, nobility, or favorable immigration status. So why in the world does he want to remain in the marriage . And more important, wouldnt there be some serious constitutional question if we compelled olivia to stay in a marriage against her will . No. [laughter] that isnt unfair answer that is an unfair answer to a fair question. You cannot hide behind eating eight trial judge. Even trial courts have to act under the constitution. Really . [laughter] [applause] im actually not familiar with that doctrine that you just called. , elyria has a law that is presumably constitutional. That law says olivia must prove fraud by my client, meaning he made a false statement to her in which he did it to procure the marriage. Not necessarily. Omissions can be an act of fraud as well. In your view, are there any omissions that establish fraud . How about failure to mention a currents bowels or once age or that you still live with your mom . Spouse. Rent he disclosed all of that. He did not go into disguise. He was just sebastian. Or, you are 100 correct could be fraud by concealment of a material matter. What olivia is alleging is that she mistook sebastian and thought that he was cesario. Ever, mike client did not my client did not know who cesario was. He could not conceal something he did not know. What was he doing in a lariat in the first place . Domain of gods and heroes. It is a great place. He left it to go to elyria . You admit it is a lot like illinois. [laughter] i just dont get it. Can you help me . I cant help you. Ok. [laughter] how much time do i have left . [laughter] you can still take your time if you wanted. Just let me just say one thing to answer your question about concealment, mightis no question but client cant possibly conceal something he doesnt know. He could not possibly have explained to olivia this mistaken issue that she had in her minds eye. He could not possibly do that because he did not know anything about it. He thought his sister was dead. He had no way of knowing that by a less had become had no way of knowing that viola was cesario. He could not possibly straighten out that confusion. To theyou speak petitioners argument about the immigration status as a reason. Im trying to understand your point about why sebastian would have wanted to marry her. Petitioner me says that immigration benefits are the reason. You dont speak to it in your brief. I can think of other reasons, maybe he just wanted access to private jets and helicopters. That seems to be all the rage these days. They get you places faster than you otherwise would. There are other reasons. None fell in love with her at the drop of a hat. He was charming and wealthy. Those are all good reasons to want to marry somebody. Way beyond immigration benefits. This could be some error. And he went along anyway. So . It seems to me that this is more than just some error. Its a complete comedy of errors. Actually, that is a little unfair. Somethingrly knew weird was going on. Came to him broke up a fight, asked him to come to her home, and he is getting there trying to figure out what to do but he does not know anything at all about cesario and she says if you will marry me, but there is no fraud in that. You have a fallback argument . Even if we find fraud but i dont catch that. It looks like we might find fraud. Thats what im worried about. Whats the waiver about . I was trying not to go to that argument. Its actually a good argument. Its really a good argument. Your argument is even if we find the fraud, we should still keep the marriage together. Waiver . Of the even the illyrian olympics do not allow that the anymore. Why should we follow that rule now . Its a new thing, but it is still the rule in elyria. Reading the case lock you have written here, which i am sworn to follow as a lawyer, under the doctrine of labor, if you discover you have been cheated and defrauded, you have to immediately abandon the transaction immediately. What happened here is that when olivia found out about this entire fraud, and that she was mistaken, what did she do . She didnt abandon the marriage whatsoever, she wanted to make violahat the sister, could join her in the ranks of royalty. She had married sebastian. Sebastian and she are now part of the royalty of the nation. She wanted the sister, who would be a nobody unless she became part of the royalty. She wanted the sister to marry the duke of elyria so that all four of them could be part of royalty. That is just way too complicated. Why can you acknowledge that olivia married the wrong person. So what. Isnt it the strongest error . Why you will marry the wrong person . I did not know that your honor, but it makes sense to me. That is my argument. My argument is assuming she was truly, truly mistaken and she did not want to marry my client under any circumstances, you cannot annul the marriage under the law of the elyria. The statute that argument might work in chicago, but this is elyria. Which argument are you talking about . Actually, all of your arguments. [laughter] fair enough. It hadnt occurred to me that she is royalty. Are they absolutely in control . Can we do something to us if we rule against her . Im sorry, your time is up. Thank you very much. [applause] i would like to answer mr. Webbs hypothetical question and point you to the question he didnt answer and then some up. Sebastianoncedes that in his words clearly knew Something Weird was going on. But he didnt know who cesario was. He says how could his client have straighten this out . Heres how, dan. Aam, i am not cesario that is how he strings it out. That leads to the question that mr. Webb did not answer. The quote that i read to you at the beginning of the argument. When olivia, right before the marriage says to him, played meet the full assurance of your faith that my most jealous and ever doubtful soul will live at peace. He says, having sworn truth, i ever shall be true. Truth tellingays is really important. I was telling the truth. Polonius who is like the sg of denmark, to thine own self be true. But the next part of his quote. Well, sebastian wasnt false to any man hear he was full to a woman. Boom. [applause] counsel alsons spoke of a waiver. We hold that claim in equally ill favor. Sebastian says, but look, olivia called viola sister. She thought sebastian was her mr. Remember that while this whole wase played out,malvolio mad, unshaven, tortured by the plot maria cooked up. Is that iambic contaminant . Yes. [applause] sometimes somehow waived her grievance. Amid all this, sebastian did deceive her. We ask that you judicious view believe her. [applause] and last, before i take my seat, i ought to give great thanks to my wing man. [applause] all rise, the honorable bench will now deliberate. Please be seated. Benchthe honorable deliberates, you the jury will also cast your vote. The tokens that you have, the question is should sebastian and olivias marriage be an old. If you believe it should be, use the blue token. If you believe it should be binding, use the red. The question again is should the marriage the annulled. Read if itshould be, should be binding. Vote just once. [laughter] [crowd noise] please welcome back abbe lowell for tonights discussion. While we wait for two chairs to calm, this is the great part where i get to bill while we let the judges deliberate. Perfect. Voting, even though dad is here, this is not illinois rules. Once. Ly vote it is my great, great pleasure to havend im thrilled david stacy here. [applause] federalads the hrcs price program. He has an extensive animal career and legislative career an extensive federal career and legislative career. What do we know about samesex couples living as commonlaw spouses in the elizabethan. People did not identify around Sexual Orientation. But we do know is they did live together and clearly had sexual relationships and have longlasting commitments in elizabethan time. Especially in the theater. [laughter] speaking of the theater, 12nking about it this way, night is being performed in elizabethan times and now. You had only men actors, portraying the roles of men and women wear in this play one of the actors playing a woman then turns back to be playing a man. What does that additional layer of crossdressing add to the already blurred lines . How does that apply across what you looked at across the history of theater . Other than a lot of confusion, in elizabethan england women could not be on the stage. They really have no choice. One of the things it shows is it to be able toum ideas, feelings, identities that they could not express in their daily lives. Confusion that that creates, the questions that creates, the questions challenges to the status quo that that creates that shakespeare was able to take advantage of. That is true even now, right . The contour of relationships sometimes first on the stage and then it works its way back into the rest of society and youve now doubt that that was true in elisa be than time in elizabethan time as well. It shows with gay and lesbian people with will and grace. And shows like transparent and orange is the new black. Then, society begins to have a different understanding of what is possible and what can happen. 1600 to thehe year year 2017. Bring us uptodate. Status after the Supreme Courts rulings today. The Supreme Court of the United States as well as the Supreme Court of elyria. Into the new situation of law. Everybody thought the issues solved and resolved and the law of the land was. Is that right, where are we today . I think we are halfway through. It was only 2003 that the Supreme Court outlawed sodomy prohibition. A little more than a decade where we have gone from that to samesex marriage. Every territory in the United States you can get married if you are gay or lesbian. But at the same time, we dont have employment protections. Only about half of the states have employment protection. We have challenges to that, like the recent case that the Supreme Court heard about the baker in colorado who refused to provide a wedding cake to a samesex couple. So we are halfway through this development. The law has caught up in some places, provides for a protections, but even just today the Supreme Court refused to case on Sexual Orientation and whether the 11th circuit sexual discrimination protects people. Circuit split thehere the course courts chose not to see that case. In the United States and around the world today, in the last 15 years, there have and what the law says and what people do. I want to go back with you again based on the research you are so happy to do for us. What do we know about the societies going backwards and , more than neutral when it came to relationships among samesex all the way back starting with the elizabethan. Has longtholic church had prohibition against samesex activity. Outlawedi homosexuality and it was punishable by death. We have even worse examples outside of england where the Catholic Church was still in charge of torturous depths. You see peoplee, living their lives in a different way. There were certainly people who lived together. People like Christopher Marlowe the poet, who was well thought to have samesex partners, samesex lovers, and so that is something you saw happening quietly in many cases. People did it under the radar. There are lots of stories about women who chose to live as men in order to be able to earn a living, to express their gender identity in a way that was more comfortable, be able to have greater opportunity then women in society. And you mentioned earlier, i want to come back to the concept, has it been in your looking back that the acceptance or the turning the other way or having the law that says one thing, but the practice that says others was a sickly something in which theater was carved out . There was a greater tolerance for sure. That is the theater, so they look the other way. Theater people are a little strange, but it is ok. There was a greater space that the theater carved out in a way that was different and was putting a mirror to society but also working the picture picture. G the what is on the way up in terms of issues about marriage or relationships or the other issues. What is coming up that we will Pay Attention to this term or in the lower courts . Case heard weiece will see a decision sometime before the end of june. It is whether the public accommodations law that is law in colorado will apply in the case of this providing a cake. Is it artistic expression or is it your open for business and you provide a service to the public you cannot take a group of people protected under law and not provide them service because you are open to the public. Race, where it was a race based case. Notowner of piggy park did want to survey mixedrace group and refuse to serve them. They won that case. Public accommodation means you have to serve everyone who comes in the door without discriminating on one on the prohibited basis. We will also see the cases around nondiscrimination on whether sexual discrimination and general identity are forms under the discrimination law. Last question. Will you as the case works its way up, surprised as some were about the tactic to try to rebut the courts decision as to what is allowed as a protected right with trying to find another constitutional right . I was a little surprised, but not so surprised because they are very tapping away from directly challenging lb qt. There were protesters on both sides. It is such a robust endorsement of artistic expression from the far right was startling. [laughter] i have heard that the Supreme Court of elyria has reached its decision as you have reached your. Please write me in thanking david for not just being here but helping us to know about something we didnt know about. [applause] [gavel] all rise. [laughter] my amber alert. My umbrella. [laughter] please be seated. We are prepared to announce our judgment. Chiefgh, there was a justice that was able to persuade his colleagues to just let him talk by himself and not have additional comments, i am totally unable to do that with expect to this unruly group. Then innnounce mine and senor the, we will continue to do that and then i will explain what the consequences are. [laughter] so, two weeks ago we saw on this Virtual Reality videotape. In that videotape, we saw perhaps it was for budgetary reasons the priest who performed the wedding ceremony feste thely th fool. And as it turns out any full cannot marry someone in illyria. There is no marriage and therefore no harm and no injury and therefore no standing. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction over this case. [laughter] well, i disagree that he mentally with this. Id disagree vehemently with this. So, we have heard two excellent arguments tonight. Hough they sound in fraud at its core this is a question about marriage. Loveho are we to judge the or lack there of between olivia and sebastian . In a completely different case, William Shakespeare declared marriage is a matter of more worth than to be dealt in by attorney ship. [laughter] justice. I too agree there is no jurisdiction [laughter] to follow up on something i colleague said. You may not have recognized this, but the argument that he gave finding no jurisdiction is one with which i agree. I agree with his as well, because what he identified as this is a political question. I think everything is a political question. [laughter] the Supreme Court was wrong. There is another reason to. More fundamentally, why we dont have jurisdiction. Right. Se is not the wedding ceremony was performed with such haste. That the couple never cut the wedding cake. They overlooked the arguments. Must and we know that wedding cake is fundamental to the right to marriage. No jurisdiction. Know how to follow that. Libya was kind of like the woman whose name escapes me, who was courted by Jerry Maguire in the movie. That famous philosopher. The whole, you had me at hello thing. Casehe key phrase in this that Jerry Maguire implied was, show me the money. You always get the answers when you follow the money. He married her for the money. We know this. [laughter] i am a District Court judge. I dont know anything about jurisdictions. [laughter] just to summarize. Just summarize. [laughter] three votes for no jurisdiction, which means they have to remain married. You guys are stuck with each other. Out . Id the jury come no one knows. And now, we will deliver the verdict of the jury. We have done this mock trial since the 1990s. This is the moment i have been waiting for. Jury, the you in the red tokens represent the marriage remains binding. The blue represent, the marriage should be annulled. [nervous laughter] applause]d all rise. This concludes the case of olympia and sebastian, brought to you by the Shakespeare Theatre company art association. Enjoy the rest of your evening. Association. Enjoy the rest of your evening. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] jefferson probably knew more about more things than any single men in north america. I do include franklin in that who you would think would be his only rival and everyone was impressed by jeffersons extensive knowledge. Smart but he did not have the depth but he did have depth history and law that jefferson did not have. Jefferson was just not as interested in the law has adams. Sunday on q a, smart but he t wood on gordon his book about the relationship and differing political views of john adams and thomas jefferson. Adams was a realist. He did not believe men were created equal. He did not believe in american exceptionalism. We americans are no better, no different from other nations. Jefferson is the opposite. Iss into nurture and that what i think most americans believe. We are all born wood on his equal and the differences are different experiences. Different environments. That is why education is so important to us americans an important to jefferson. Gordon woods sunday night at 8 00 hes on the stand. On cspan. Keith koffler on his book bannon, always the rebel. He is interviewed by a texas representative. Spent a lot of time with steve bannon. You have heard his goals. You have talked about what he wants to do. What do you give him for being able to help reach those goals . You want me to be not only honest but hopeful. I tend to agree with a lot of what he says. I think there is a decent chance because i think bannon believes the electorate has already changed. Even in the general election, hope was victorious despite obvious flaws in trump. Not a perfect person. Despite a lot of controversy, they elected him. I think what bannon believes is that already the longing for populism and nationalism is there. He believes it is already victorious among the base. Where it has not changed is in the leadership in some parts of the provoking party, particularly the senate. That is what is driving him. Watch sunday night at 9 p. M. Eastern on cspan twos book tv
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.