D out theto them, lai facts, treated the people like ,dults, got his agenda through and he is in for a very tough fight again this year. The media is out to get him. The long knives are out. If you can win for the third time in wisconsin, he should at least get a look from our side heading into 2016. [applause] he looks great kicking off the summit a year ago. Lots of us were here. As we wrap up the panel, we catherine hamm, James Goldman and guy benson, and as the rookie, katie, we want to initiate you. I hope we have the slide. Thanks. Back up [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] houseing up next, White Press Secretary josh earnest briefing reporters on the situation in iraq. And then the court of appeals hears oral arguments on the samesex average band marriage ban in michigan. After that, a debate in the Virginia Senate race. On the next washington journal, the latest on u. S. Military strike on
It is the renaming of a post office. You dont want to talk about your record in the congress when it comes to protecting the elderly because you were one of the very few democrats to vote to nund mine Social Security by raising the retirement age and reducing the cost of living adjustment. This is an example of the way, colleen, you have been operating which is to try to talk about every single thing that you can come up with except your record in the congress and except my record in the senate. Brian, ill talk to you any day about my record especially in the areas where it comes to preserving jobs and creating jobs. Lets be also very clear about your problem. You keep saying i opposed this governor. He never did. Brian, i read every single testimony that was given and you never opposed the governor. You actually stood with him. I cant bring my picture in here, but people remember my picture and you said we have to do hard things. The bottom line is, you are always willing to balance t
Well, i think the court by citing loving in windsor thinks that there is not much difference between marriage by a samesex couple and marriage by an interracial couple. They didnt decide the case but they cited it. The trend is certainly in that direction. I think the court its different from saying what loving stands for. Isnt the answer to my question about what happened in 1968 pretty obvious because we have baker in 1973. I think that lawrence, excuse me, that Justice Kennedy tells us something about how the court may be viewing these cases. I think what he is saying and i think you see it in lawrence and you see it in windsor. The court is saying that back decades ago, certain practices were accepted. Now we understand more about these things and we now understand that these are now going to be framed as discriminatory. We didnt know anything about samesex couples back at the at the time of loving. These were hiding because their conduct was criminalized. I think to say that this
I am not a member of the nsa team and i do not apologize for that to anyone. Thank you for your time and i look forward to the question and answer. Over the next few hours or cspan 3, well look at federal cases in the National Supreme court. Up next, oral arguments from a lawsuit transmissioning michigans bang ban on gay marriages. After that, oral argument and American Civil Liberties union versus clapper on the National Security agencys collection of americans phone records. And the conversation on cameras and the court, and other issues of Supreme Court transparency, and later, a discussion on judicial independence. On monday, the Supreme Court decided not the hear michigan was not among those states so its ban on samesex marriage was not affected. Up next on cspan 3, the oral argument on michigans ban on gay marriage. Whether a District Court can disregard a directly namely baker versus nelson, and the bigger picture, its about what federal rights in the creation of a new federal c
May it please the court. For 50 years the Supreme Court has recognize that the freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life are libertied protected by due process. April and jane have a constitutional right to share a life, to marry, to form a family, to raise their children. We show in this case that no matter what standard of scrutiny the court uses, no matter what doctrine the court applies, the state cant prevail here. The michigan marriage amendment is unconstitutional. A starting disagreement between the parties as the court has already observed, is an articulation of the right itself, its the right to marry i realize before windsor, the first and Second Circuit said that baker is binding, post wind sorry, theres no majority recognizing that, i have to say, i find that a very serious issue, the thing thats coming on is you, oddly enough, we treat some reversals as binding precedent no less than a fully written opinion. Everyone understands thats true, theres