80 or meaybe 0990 votes, i don remember, that, one, confirmed this country s commitment to avoid cruel and unusual punishment and on how guantanamo detainees should be except the conclusion that we come away with is that when the bill on the mccain amendment was about to be voted on, you forwarded press articles explaining what having these two provisions together mant. that w maer meant. that was the mccain amendment and the graham amendment, which
the trump administration, i once again think that s a very good thing for the republican party. fred, as you ve been listening to the conversation here, the question might be at least we discussed this today on msnbc, might they bring in now as future decisions will be announced, might they bring in a centrist democrat? might they bring in somebody who as you bring in this team of rivals, right, to work together that is a variety of perspectives from all across the political spectrum and for that maer from across the country that might react to who brought president-elect trump to the white house? do you see that as a possibility? it s very hard to prognosticate as a democrat. if he did something like that, a
i think it was a convention. sean hannity walks up the stairs and looks at me and goes, what happened? i told him i was hurt as a medical student, it was no big deal. it told me even somebody i had been on the air with wouldn t know. what is apparent is that krauthammer has the attention of people in high places. just one example, krauthammer s opposition to white house counsel harriet maier not only helped to block her nomination to the supreme court, it gave president bush a way out. i remember thinking, how do we get out of this. it came to me while on the set of special report. i think what the administration ought to do his face-saving solution basically went like this. because maer s legal writers were protected by executive privilege, the senate couldn t vet her so she had to withdraw. three days later that s what they did. are you surprised by the
supreme court got it wrong twrop abortion and it create add 40 yooesh culture war. why create another culture war over the meaning of marriage? let s have the conversation, go to the ballot boxes and vote about this, but we don t need an activist court messing up american politics like it did 40 years ago. actually, craig, we don t in america quickly. we don t believe everything should be put up to a sproept freedom to speech, freedom of religion, freedom to smaer not something we take votes on. it belongs to all of us under the constitution and that is why we have court. freedom to marry belongs to everyone, but what marriage is, you re talking about redefining marriage. marriage is not defined by who s denied it. this isn t cross fire. i want to end with you. go ahead. an odd way to think about constitutional law to sap that the court should refrain from deciding whether something is constitutional or not, even if it would be advantageous for the nation as a whole t
they say the state is endorsing religion and site lates the constitution. is that true. they have a got a case. wonderful the resolution sounds benign, uplifting, and all that it has the mark of legislating religion. that arguably runs afoul of the definition of the separation between church and state. the whole establishment clause. look how courts have interpreted it. you can t even have the ten commandments in a courtroom, jenna. how will this fly? i think they have got got a case. i don t like the way they are pursuing it but they have a case. jenna: look about the case. not just about separation of church and state. they simply do not like the content of the bible as well. they say the content to encourage people to rely on the content of the bible and therefore, act in an maer harmful to them and to others. does that, us did that change their argument, the validity of it? well, it doesn t change their arguement. i think their argument is legal sophistry. their real problem is