chopping block because this court has made it clear that they re not bound by in decisiveness, especially in circumstances when it comes to interpreting the constitution. and i said repeatedly last year in jobs, that they are free to look at these precedents and to correct in what they believe are egregious errors. everything is on the table. justice thomas told us in the dobbs case. there s griswold bars as connecticut that illegal as contraception. there loving versus virginia, he s let this pass. again, it s here in this new case. of course obergefell raises bigger questions. it s not clear that there is going to be an immediate assault on gay marriage, but the decision in this case, that was the case of this website to provide services for same-sex couples, that s the beginning opening salvo, chipping away at the kinds of services and expectations that couples might have in the public sphere. this is once you normalize that you can treat same-sex couples
basically step in and try to erase billions of dollars of debt. he needs congressional authority to do that, and that is where the supreme court agreed. the court has shown enormous deference to congress, right? oftentimes in its decisions it says that should be a congressional responsibility or it s a state legislature responsibility. we saw that for instance on the dobbs case. in this case, though, i heard other folks interpret the law, the heroes act the decision was based on was as congress wrote the law and gave the president this authority. how do you understand how the court defines congress role here and does it stand up? that s what justice kagen wrote. she said the court is in here and it s ignoring what the court has said. but this conservative court at times has been very skeptical of administrative agencies. they say, look, separation of powers. they are not accountable to the people, and they believe this
a fake elector s scheme, not an alternative in case the court ruled in their favor. that would be huge. but we just don t know that yet. an important note of caution. mike smith fur yore great reporting. thank you both so much for spending time with us today. david jolly sticks around longer because straight ahead, the right wing group playing a big role in the presidential primary today. what we re learning about moms for liberty and their alleged ties to violent extremist groups like the proud boys. that s next. proud boys that s next.
of course it needs to decide real cases, it doesn t have enough time to do hypotheticals. the thing that is so amazing about this case is that this is somebody who there was no real issue. there was no complaint. there wasn t even somebody who had opened up a business. this was somebody who said, hey, i m thinking i might open a business and i m thinking that i might want to discriminate against same-sex marriage couples. and it turns out even all of that didn t raise a case or controversy because there was nobody who was actually asking there was no same sex couple who was asking for the person to do anything. so the whole thing was a hypothetical. just remarkable that that becomes the vehicle and as justice kagan said, any court
that was functioning as a court, not as a legislature, as a court, would have said there is no standing. there is no case here. we re dub. meaning you have to wait for another vehicle. maybe you come up with the same horrendous decision later, but that is why as a lawyer it is so dispiriting because if you do not have honesty and integrity in the courts and you are not operating with the rule of law, then you re in tyranny. this is wherever law ends tyranny begins. and if you don t have the supreme court at least, you know, in good faith applying the law, it is impossible to have respect for that institution. and i know that justice roberts gave a plea at the end of his decision saying that he really hopes that people don t take this the wrong way, et cetera. i mean, but he is he really only has himself to blame in