money group using dark money to accuse biden s supreme court nominee, at that point, a player to be named later. judge jackson had not been selected at this point. of being a tool or stooj of liberal activist dark money. this is a screen shot from their advertisement paid for by the jude it s crisis network. so, it s worth understanding for a moment what the judicial crisis network is and where it lies. and it lies in a network of organizations. the prevailing way political mischief is accomplished these days is with a 501 krourks 3 organization. 501 c 3 gets tax deduction and the c-4 gets to participate in political activities. and there s a fund twinned
atm of the right, the koch brothers affiliated operation, in 2002 it got $5. no big deal. 2019, in this operation was in full swing, it got $7 million. we don t know who the real donor was because that s the job of donors trust is to deidentify the donor. to launder the identity off the donation so you can t connect the dots anymore. but $7 million i think is quite a lot of money. and unfortunately, the federalist society was not alone. right down the hallway, is something called the jude it s crisis network. it s in the downtown washington building. although jcn s mailing address at a different location and address shared by multiple companies. and right down that hallway, at that jude it s crisis network,
0 of marriage, correct? i am aware there are various religious faiths that define marriage in a traditional way. do you see that when the supreme court makes a dramatic pronouncement about the invalidity about state marriage laws, it will inevitably set in conflict between those who ascribe to the supreme court s edict and those who have a firmly held religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman? well, senator, these issues are being litigated, as you know, throughout the courts i as people raise issues and so, i m limited in what i can say about them. i m aware there are cases i m not asking you to decide a case or predict how you would decide in the future. i m asking isn t it apparent that when the supreme court decided something that is not even in the constitution is a fundamental right and no state can pass any law that conflicts with the supreme court s edict, particularly in an area where people have sincerely held religious believes, doesn t that effec