controlling the turn style that decides who gets on the court. controlling the funding of the political campaigns that pursue the folks on the court. and actually once you get on the court, we re working now with judiciary itself to try clean up the mess of that same anonymous money appearing before the court through phoney front groups that file amks briefs or in a full armada. of dark money-funded front groups. so, that bears not at all on this nominee but because this is a public forum and we ve heard that so-called hammering of dark money groups. i wanted to make sure it was cleared to everybody how this game is played. and what the difference is. in the way the two sides play it. so, now, back to our business,
0 of marriage, correct? i am aware there are various religious faiths that define marriage in a traditional way. do you see that when the supreme court makes a dramatic pronouncement about the invalidity about state marriage laws, it will inevitably set in conflict between those who ascribe to the supreme court s edict and those who have a firmly held religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman? well, senator, these issues are being litigated, as you know, throughout the courts i as people raise issues and so, i m limited in what i can say about them. i m aware there are cases i m not asking you to decide a case or predict how you would decide in the future. i m asking isn t it apparent that when the supreme court decided something that is not even in the constitution is a fundamental right and no state can pass any law that conflicts with the supreme court s edict, particularly in an area where people have sincerely held religious believes, doesn t that effec