is in front of her. the supreme court s ruling in fact, said that they ruled that there was rights for same-sex marriage. but the supreme court, ed, can t make a law. they can t bring into a codified version of a law and prescribe specifically. gregg: trial attorney chip merlin joins us. criminal defense attorney sharon lyko joins us as well. chip, it seems pretty straightforward. she violate ad supreme court ruling. a federal judge told her to comply with a supreme court ruling. she refused. her chances on appeal, how would you handicap that? pretty slim, almost none as a matter of fact. i ve been doing this 30 years. one thing you certainly learn, when a judge tells you to do something, tell you to do it, injunction in this case and you refuse to do so you can expect to be thrown in jail. almost only thing left for judge to do. in our civil justice system, that higher rule of law people
that would require them to provide coverage of contraceptives this their insurance plans despite the church s teaching on that issue. how far will the lawsuits make it? all the way to the supreme court? let s talk about it with trial attorney chip merlin and family law expert sharon leiko. they are near break it down. thank you both for joining us on this debate. good afternoon. sharon, i want to start with you. what do you think about the potential for success on this particular there are are 12 lawsuits. 43 plaintiffs. a very coordinated effort here. right. i think they going to lose hands down. it is fundamental with the way the first amendment attacks are analyzed by the supreme court that if a law is generally applicable meaning it applies to everybody and that it is neutral. it is not singling out a particular faith. it is going to withstand the attack that it is unconstitutional and that is what is going to happen here. we have had many cases where
right now in kelly s court. joining me now trial attorney chip merlin and kimberly guilfoyle. this is unbelievable to me. kimberly, the defendant comes out and says, this guy, the victim was riding through lahr legal trying to find anybody to murder him. to me as a former prosecutor i heard a few stories, this one takes the cake. the defendant, the us next this case i think will be convicted. i don t think his story makes any sense. he actively murdered this man by plunge the knife repeatedly into this chest. megynmegyn: he says he says it s locker the victim who thrust his chest upon my knife repeatedly.
planned walmart site but at the home of a developer behind one of the walmarts. the group called walmart free d.c. even producing fliers in advance of this protest with the man s home address on them along with a bull s-eye target. is this what it s come to? joining me now jason lewis, a sid today indicated radio host. and trial attorney chip merlin. gentlemen, thank you for being here. this is the first time they ve gone to this man s house. this man always alleged sin is he wants to develop one of the mall. martha: . they went on december 16th, not long before christmas. they go back again last night jason to try to make a point within 20 feet of the man s home. is it legal? is it right? well, the double standard with the crosshairs aside, threats of violence, and i m not saying this is a clear threat of violence, but threats of violence are not protected