of a gender issue. that has to be addressed. i think when the umpire looks goes to bed and looks in the mirror, you kind of have to sort of follow the truth where it leads. in this case he was wrong. you don t always act on the letter of the law when you re dealing with somebody like serena williams. bill, i want to ask you about this being a catalytic moment. you re talking about the need to change these rules with regards to coaching, the penalties that were imposed on players for when they changed clothes. serena williams talked about this last night in the press conference. her protest was in part because she doesn t want this to happen again. how do you ensure that s the case? how do you ensure this is something that does change the scripture surrounding professional tennis in the world today. that s a great question. we can change rules. this is sort of where we re in the climate of the country.
years ago, but now i understand. but the caveat is what? there s one caveat, which is he s saying congress should pass legislation to make this law. he s not saying that the constitution inherently that presidential power prevents the way the question would come up now. what he s saying also is that the president is so malevolent and terrible, there s a political solution. there is impeachment. so if you feel that s the case, then impeach the president, but what ken starr did was not the right thing to do. let my give you the quote, gloria. he said, a possible concern is that the country needs a check against a bad behaving or law-breaking president, but the constitution also provides that check. if the president does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available. no single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the constitution assigns to the congress. the president s job is difficult enough as it is, and the country loses when the president
do you believe that? i can t imagine why he d have to recuse himself. every judge makes decisions based on the facts known to him. recusal doesn t come into play because a judge has had an issue in the past. it comes in with personal conflicts of interest. i m not aware of any reason brett kavanaugh would have to recuse from that investigation. we know how he feels about presidential power and independence of organizations and of agencies. where do you think he stands on the fbi and the department of justice and their independence as well? you know, i think judges come at cases not having a position on the parties. i think judges come to cases with legal issues presented to them. i m sure if a doj or fbi case came before him, he would treat it like he would treat a department of energy case or a case involving any other party, which is look at the facts and the law and decide the case without regard to who the parties are. rachel brand, you re very
yes. listen, here s the thing with roe v. wade. while i think that was a terrible decision personally, stare decisis means something. reliance as a principle of judicial review means a lot. i don t think the idea that i think there s a scare tactic going on from the left. that roe v. wade will be overturned tomorrow if we confirm the next justice that donald trump appoints. i don t think that s the case. i do think what will happen is we will see representative democracy start to work a lot more. with all due respect, i understand, i just want an answer relating to what kavanaugh said in 2006 and not what you think is going to happen. do you think this is all different now that he s on the court, that he s going to change or he might actually answer the question a different way, that he won t dodge? that s my question to you. i don t think he ll answer the question a different way.
the court does say that in the particular kicircumstances of h phillip was treated, his religious views didn t get the respect of the commission that initially ruled against him. he cites commission members that said appeared to be dismissive or hostile to jack phillip s religious views. the 13r50esupreme court this w marred as soon as the commission said those things. all the court decision today says is, because of the way jack phillips was treated below, he wins. but the decision also says, we re not expressing a view about the larger issue that made this case so interesting. which is, can other bakers, florists, people who print wedding invitations, who provide services, people who sing at weddings, play the organ, do the deejay services, all those businesses, can they refuse to serve same-sex couples?