america when they decide something is an unenameerated fundamental right. in the minute 48 seconds i have. this is a guilty plea and you were asked to assess a punishment and at one point in the proceedings, you said i m going to state for the record that this court has a long-standing policy disagreement with the criminal history guidelines respect to the application of the two-point am hansment. do you remember when you said hath? i don t remember that particular statement. how is that policy disagreement different from other disagreements where you said you re not going to get out of your lane, into the policy lane? yes. senator. supreme court, in the sentencing
this is an unenameerated fundamental right and the voters, whatever they ve said is irrelevant because we, five members of the supreme court, are going to decide what the law of the land should be and anybody who disagrees with us will be labelled a bigot or be accused of discrimination, even if their believes happen to flow from sincerely held religious conviction, like that of a marriage between man and woman. you ve already said you see why this is a concern. i see why it is a concern and although the supreme court is not bound, in the sense of having to apply prior precedent, there is starry desisis in our system and there s standards in that world that the supreme court applies when it it s asked to sorry.
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