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
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 constitutional right if that should be done through the amendment process or by the courts on the subsequent due process doctrine. So theres Common Ground on this case, but the u. S. Constitution doesnt directly address samesex marriage, seems to turn to the subject of due process. Is whether or not the right thats being asserted is objectively, deeply rooted in this nations history and tradition. And you cant conceive of liberty and just without it and samesex marriage does not have that necessary historical deep root. What do you say about the fact that one could have said the same thing about lawrence . Well, respect to lawrence, the Lawrence Court has not repeatedlied apply the analysis and recognized the continuing way theyre supposed to analyze su
So this court has routinely cited cases under those customs statutes as illuminating the meaning of the probable cause standard and is therefore illuminating so you disagree with justice storey when he looked at those cases and made the point i just made . You think he was wrong . Theres no doubt in those cases the question the court was ultimately answering is are those customs officers liable . But the way it was answering that question was by determining whether those officers had probable cause. And probable cause is the constitutional standard. Thats why they have subsequently relied on the cases. Can i ask you a question id like you to address for a minute. Assume for the sake of argument i agree with you that a reasonable mistake of law is an excuse but what is a reasonable mistake . Thats what i would like you to address and in particular would you have objection to, it has to be, one, exceedingly rare, two, objective, three it has to be that the reasonable lawyer would think t
June of 2015 is the better path for the community, not necessarily your clients, the community at large. Changing hearts and minds happens through democracy much more effectively than it happens through court decisions. I understand, judge, but i represent four couples. Their kids deserve two parents. They deserve them today and thats and they are entitled to those based on these notions of due process and equal protection. And especially when you look at the movement thats occurred. This is similar to the loving situation, which by the way, was a recognition case. I mean, that couple moved to d. C. , got married, then came back to virginia and were prosecuted because virginia wouldnt recognize the d. C. Marriage. At the time of the decision in 1967, there were 15 states that had repealed the ban on interracial marriage. There was momentum going in their favor, but the Supreme Court still struck down their prosecution. There was still 16 states that prohibited interracial marriage. Tha
So it depends on the intent of all 3 million voters who voted for this constitutional amendment. Thats an analysis thats literally impossible. You cant gauge into the mind of everybody who voted yes for proposition 1. I think thats distinguishable from rumor. And windsor, because the court in those cases didnt engage in the legislative intent of what the laws on their face and said the law on their face are unusual. And thats not the case here. So if theres no further questions, i respectfully ask the court to reverse the District Court. Mr. Murphy, can we go back to the 19th century history we were talking about . It occurred to me after you sat down that you thought i was talking about these the suffragists crisscrossing the country trying to get an amendment to the United States constitution. Thats not what they did. They knew that was virtually impossible. They were going to the local people trying to get the right to vote on the school board. They were going to each state legislat