Long as they have in essence extra funds. Another possibility could be that the Supreme Court could hear oral arguments at the beginning of october if it wanted to. Theres a lot of speculation and a lot of uncertainty right now. The next we will take you live now to that discussion on the just completed Supreme Court term. We are live at the National Press club for a panel hosted by the american constitution society. After the bush v. Gore decision and acs was founded on the principle that law should be a force to improve the lives of all people. Now, the Supreme Court term that ended [ applause ] i know, it shouldnt we shouldnt actually have to say that thats an aspiration, but unfortunately it is. And that brings us to the Supreme Court term that ended yesterday and left us with quite a number of Unanswered Questions and some that were answered in ways that we might not have liked. But that all lead us to the coulden collusion that courts really matter and whether you care about the
Here was, first, a white man, admitting that he was prejudice, which for people of color was, we kind of just say finally. We take you live to the washington counsel of lawyers. Well hear about some of the Big Decisions this last term. Introductions began just a moment ago. Paul has argued before the Supreme Court 21 times. I was lucky enough to be in the chamber of the Supreme Court when he argued on behalf of the plaintiffs in the landmark gay rights case. As a young man gay man considering whether to attend law school, i had slept on the sidewalk outside the Supreme Court for the chance to enter the chamber and observe a pursuit of justice. I would have been really bummed if i hadnt gotten in. It paid off and i was able to hear the oral arguments which were amazing. In addition, paul has argued a number of important voting ri t rights cases. One involving partisan jerry man gerrymandering. Paul has been honored nationally by a variety of publications and organizations in recognition
Case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado civil rights commission. The case arose when Charlie Craig and david mullins, a gay cupple who walked tomorrow when Masterpiece Cakeshop in lakewood, colorado, owned and operated by Jack Phillips, a devout christian. As with all of his customers, phillip said no problem with selling the couple anything off the shelf, but he declined to make a custom made cake to celebrate the couples wedding. Citing his religious convictions. He was willing to direct them to nearby bakeries and would design a cake as he had done with others. Unsatisfied, craig and mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission alleged that phillips had violated the colorado antidiscrimination act. Finding in their favor, the commission ordered phillips, among other things torques conduct comprehensive staff things, to conduct comprehensive staff training including his family members who worked at the bakery. After supporters of craig and mullins picketed the
Masterpiece cake shop in colorado refused to make a wedding cake for samesex couples on religious grounds. The court will hear the case tomorrow. The Cato Institute hosted this debate. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Cato Institute. I am the Vice President for legal affairs, founding director of the center for constitutional studies and your host for this afternoons debate. I want to welcome those that are joining us on cspan and through the lifestream. We are here to consider whether religious liberty can coexist with antidiscrimination law. We will hear oral arguments tomorrow when it hears the case of the Masterpiece Cake shop the colorado Civil Rights Commission. The case arose when Charlie Cragg couple walked into the cake shop in colorado owned and operated by Jack Phillips a devout christian as with all of his customers and phillips had no problem selling anything off the shelf but he declined to make a custommade cake to celebrate the couples wedding citing his religious convict
Good afternoon, welcome to the cato institute. I am the Vice President for legal affairs. Thethe Founding Member of Constitution Center founder of the Founding Member of the center for constitutional studies. Your host for this afternoons debate. I want to welcome also the people who are joining us through cspan and through catos live streaming. Were here to consider whether religious liberty can coexist alongside modern antidiscrimination law. Thats the question the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on tomorrow when it hears the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado civil rights commission. The case arose when Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a gay couple who walked into the Masterpiece Cakeshop in lakewood, colorado, owned and operated by Jack Phillips, a devout christian. As with all of his customers, phillip said no problem with phillips had no problem with selling the couple anything off the shelf, but he declined to make a custom made cake to celebrate the couples wedding