incumbent whose district includes this trip. facing a primary challenge from liberal activist. she has been endorsed by big name on democratic left. voters going to the polls on tuesday. live with more on this race. she is in las vegas. hey there. hey there, eric. nevada is a very interesting landscape year. a lot of hourly workers struggling to make ends meet. i just spoke to man a few days ago, he has a father of two working two jobs just to make ends meet. just to survive and feed his family. the day i met him he did not know if he would able to make it into work by driving because gas prices are so high. watch this. i was not able to make it to my second job today because of gas prices. i do still have my night shift coming up that i will be going to work locally.
money group using dark money to accuse joe biden s supreme court nominee, at that point a player to be named later, judge jackson had not been selected at that point, of being a tool, liberal activist, dark money. this is a screenshot of their advertisement paid for by the judicial crisis network. so it s worth understanding for a moment what the judicial crisis network is and where it lies. it lies in the network of organizations, the prevailing way is with the parrot 5o1c3 and 501(c)(4) organization. the 5o1c3 gets to the tax seduction, the 5o1c forgets to participate in political activity. sure enough there s an 85 fund
0 christianity, judaism, islam, embraces traditional definition of marriage, correct? i am aware that 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 of state marriage laws, that it will inevitably sit 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? woman? well, senator, these issues are being litigated, as you know, throughout the courts as people raise issues. i am limited with 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 to, i m just asking isn t it apparent that when the supreme court decides that 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 w