Progress or will we move forward continuing to expand and envelop the rights of individuals in a changing world which is bound impact upon those individual sense of who they are and what they can do . Will these noble human rights and Human Dignity, which is a legacy of the past two centuries, continue to mark the journey of our people . Judge, as you well know, this is no ordinary nomination, not merely because you are there. I must say to you, it is somewhat daunting for as experienced as you are, to sit there with an array of people about to question you. It is not an easy position to be in. I am confident that you will handle it well. Nonetheless, it is an, not an easy position. This nomination is with all due respect judge, has been about you. The passing on of this Supreme Court nomination we must also pass judgment on whether or not your philosophy is an appropriate one at this time in our history. That was senator joe biden in september of 1987. He was addressing Supreme Court
Disagree with the treaty. We have a very very lengthy treaty and a complex 1994 agreement and then we have the behavior of the Member States themselves. Theres the argument based on the reagan. I have been looking for an opportunity to drive the stake through for some time. That will trump his statement from the secretary of state and fatly to the opposite. They came out with an official view of the reagan administration. I refer here Ronald Reagan may be because i had four president ial appointments. I live here this man and it is important that we not ascribe used to him that would be problematic to the United States. His opinion that is the fee met those six red conditions, we got the treaty, we would be able to move forward. Let me indicate what i suspect what the actual meaning was. If you look at the time line in terms of wind that was actually a decision being made by reagan that he is writing about, the decision is entirely different from what steve is talking about. This is a
Wants to have the abortion, maybe in a fragile state of mind , and this kind of thing could interfere with her health, etc. There are two interests. We know that eight feet with the bubble is ok. We are not sure about 35 feet, and they have an evidentiary record. A few things. The reason this court gave for allowing that eight foot no approach zone was it about protecting unwilling listeners. It did not stop discussions with willing listeners. Do you accept that the record shows it did not work well in the sense that Justice Breyer not at all. All it says is that the police found it difficult to apply a bubble, eight feet or whatever it is. They did not say that massive obstruction in protests are occurring, preventing people from that was not the finding . That is why i asked you that question. It happens that the police testify with some evidence that the ep doubled is not work. The eight feet doubled does not work. They have some evidence for thinking that if you want to have a conv
Arise. That, ally and all of i am hearing you say is that you have to use spouse. That is all that would have to change. Yeah. , i didgmatic question not anticipate it. Maybe i should have. Doubti think there is no that it would require it would require a new law being or. Ed or, forms. The two country ones, with ones, withconcrete respect to democracy and massachusetts controlling ohio , proceeding with caution seems a rational response. You expect that and it is a variation on the pacing point. Maybe that is rational basis. Lets except that it is. It cannot last forever. How does the court move on that . Do they get the benefit of the doubt . How does it work . It withourt implements the eighth amendment standards and they look at how society has changed over the years. You look at all of the facts. Point, you hit a trigger of states that recog nize samesex marriage. That is a response and it is new. The law is about drawing lines. I will point, it becomes a rational. Irrational. I d
Void in ohio . It depends. The way the courts undertake the choice of law analysis is to say outofstate marriage is only voidable, we will recognize it here even if it is unlawful here. That is the First Cousins marriage case. For other types of marriages, if the marriage would be deemed void, which ohio courts would take to mean commonlaw is not recognized and would not be recognized. The henry sales case, that was an instate ohio marriage, a commonlaw marriage. The court established the rule that it was absolutely void and the court would not recognize it. That void versus voidable is the distinction, not samesex marriage versus opposite sex marriage. That is one example for why i think baker is controlling. Another distinction may try to make is to say that there is a substantive due process right not to marry, but marriage recognition. I do not even think you need to get to the analysis, because under the Supreme Court cases and this courts cases, when you have a specific provision