a case that is so important in terms of contemporary issues tell us where donald trump is on this particular issue and how important it is to him. sean: he also weighed in on the second amendment, he respects it, writing that there is a long tradition of widespread gun ownership by private individuals in this country and thetr supreme court has held the second amendment to own firearms not beyond fringe. he used the actual text of the constitution. he was referring to that one case, that was a layup in my view of a decision. the the thing is the right to die, euthanasia book, it informs us of his views on life, liberty, the pursuit of thappiness.
the white house did a very good keeping this a secret. and the theatrics surrounding it very well orchestrated. that s right, john. as the president announced last night, neil gorsuch has an impressive academy background. he s got degrees from columbia, harvard law school, oxford. he spent his teenage years in washington, d.c. incidentally, his mom was the first woman to head the environmental protection agency. he clerked on the supreme court for justice kennedy. and his judicial philosophy isn t a secret. he s described as predictively and socially conservative, much like in the mold of the late justice scalia. he believes in following an original interpretation of the constitution. now, on some of his more notable cases he was one of the original judges in the hobby lobby decision where the 10th circuit ruled that corporations can refuse to cover birth control under their employees health
not okay with what he said but is it going to make you flip over? it isn t. kayleigh, one of these women feels like she can believe everything trump says. and then of course he s the one who said he grabs women. so presumably she doesn t believe that specific. is there anything that would make these women turn from trump? or at this point absolutely not. my family does the same thing. they pray donald trump does become president and the reason is not that we support his language. of course no one supports that but we realize the stakes. we realize the hobby lobby decision the right to not force companies to buy contraception. the heller decision. the right to hold a hg. the immigration recently. a four four decision. the stakes are high. and you look across the aisle and you see hillary clinton and this horrible fbi report that the state department offered a quid pro quo in the kworwords oe fbi senior official . so you see the stakes on the
that this law would have allowed them to do that. first of all, that s just true legally. if you don t think that s what this law would have allowed people to do you don t understand the law. then you don t understand the law, chris. how so? we ve had a religious freedom restoration act in this country for over 20 years. it was drafted, intended and materially different than what was in indiana s law. it s not materially different from indiana. it said people and you extend it to businesses. the differences in indiana were substantively exactly the same. you moved it to private actions. then why would they change it. supported by the court. that s why we ve had the hobby lobby decision. hobby lobby was different, it s a real decision and it s something that should be taken into consideration going forward. nobody says otherwise. if you look at the federal law in this one, it is materially different. it is not materially different. then you tell me why this isn
consumes from nursery to university can t game an exemption if gays seek to use the facilities. an exemption known as the armstrong amendment when it was passed in 1989. a lot of people felt it was appropriate to discriminate based on sexual orientation. as we ve seen the law has changed in the area of marriage equality. people feel differently about it. the issue of religious liberty has bean hot one in 2014 high liked by the supreme court s hobby lobby decision allowing the craft chain owners to refuse to subsidize the cost of four forms of birth control that they believe triggers abortions. d.c. council members say that ruling has no impact on their decision to repeal conscience protections for religious schools located within the district and the district s general counsel believes it will with stand legal scrutiny. skeptics disagree.