among the judges was merrick garland, a former supreme court nominee and chief justice of the d.c. circuit court of appeals. this is an hour. >> thank you and good evening for joining us. the winter mock trial is presented by the group we call ourselves the bar association. it is the infinity group that has lawyers a try to do toething more productive support theatre in all kinds of ways. theater is what we are using the stage for. beingnight" is currently performed here. it runs until the 20th. [applause] i hope, if you haven't seen it at least twice, you will consider coming. 12th night, by the way, is not how long it takes for the reconciliation action -- reconciliation act takes. stranded on the coast of elyria, viola and her twin brother sebastian become separated. while viola assumes the costume of a page boy named cesarean to be the page for duke orsino, she finds herself at the center of a very explosive love triangle with a sophisticated they are wrong to think of us in that way. in a elyria and now in our theater, the issue is will music be the fruit of love, be enough to legally bind the marriage of the ola and sebastian in holy much of money. at the conclusion of tonight's argument, after the judges have made their ruling, we will ask you to be the jury, to answer the following question. should olivia and sebastian's marriage be an old? if you believe, yes, the marriage should be an old -- ed, please vote with your blue token. if you think they should not, please vote with your red token. please welcome supreme court justice pamela token. now please, the counsel for the respondent sebastian, dan gooden.and elizabeth in a moment, calling to order the marshall will call, we will welcome the bench for tonight. the supreme court will be chief judge merrick garland. judge thomas griffin's and judge cut time the brown jackson. [applause] they will be here in a minute. please enjoy the trial. [gavel] >> all rise. oh yeah a, oea, oh yeah a. the supreme court is now in session. please be seated. [applause] >> thank you mr. chief justice and may it please the court. to be leave olivia or not to be leave olivia. that is the question. my client tell in love with one person. she was tricked into marrying another. when she realized that she had been married to a stranger she sought annulment. the lower courts denied her that relief. it is only available when one spouse is behavior has been duped. there is ample evidence that sebastian's deceptive behavior induced olivia to marry him. when sebastian first sets eyes on olivia, she called him her dear's is reo. cesario.sesa people do go by different names. for instance when she is kicking it with her homey's, justice ruth ater ginsburg goes by the notorious rbg. as well as her graffiti tag, i dissent. but nothing in this record supports that sebastian ever went by the name cesario and yet he stayed silent. he thinks to himself that there is something in it disabled. he has a another chance to set things straight right before the the wedding. olivia asked him point blank. my most jealous and ever doubtful soul may live at peace. there is his opportunity break there. in the record to say look, this has been great. it is not you, it's me. [laughter] because it's not me. it's -- you are clearly in love with a different me. but he doesn't say any of that. instead what he says is, having sworn truth i ever will be true. sebastian says i did not deceive her. i used my name during the wedding. but that it north the truth that olivia was highly distracted. she had arranged for a little cake shop in the neighboring country of colorado to create a beautiful, artistic, highly expressive food for the wedding. the guy never showed up. not to mention her loyal servant who is an ill tempered man prancing around the patio in yellow stockings. he brown hair and hazel eyes. [laughter] >> can i ask. i am a little worried about the implications of this argument for misrepresentation or miss understanding. you realize this is "twelfth night" which is 12 nights after christmas. therefore winter is coming. [laughter] does this mean that john snow will not be able to marry dinero's because, he is not his son? we could be in a lot of trouble. >> i am really upset about that spoiler alert. i like, have not watched that part. thanks for that. [laughter] i think the answer is if we are talking about mistaken identities, we are talking about mistaken names. this is one of sebastian's arguments. because he used his real name at the wedding she was on notice that he was not who she thought he was. as the leading commentator put it, that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. >> i want to be sure i understand the facts of this case. so, if the priest shows up in drag sebastian and apologizes for her haste, that according to the priest she makes a contract of eternal love to firm by mutual joining of hands, attested by the holy coils of blips, strengthened by the interchanging of rings, during which sebastian declares i, sebastian, take the olivia as my wedded wife. you want us to believe that olivia did not know what you was getting into? [laughter] >> olivia may have been a tad impetuous in proposing the marriage. but to be very clear, olivia was not looking for love. love found her. she had sworn off all suitors for seven years. she had deleted her profile from tinder. she had stopped surfing farmersonly.com [laughter] >> but your brief does not focus on olivia. it focuses on sebastian hearing you say sebastian engaged in deceit. that is too harsh. he identified himself by name in the ceremony. it just turned out to be different. he turned out to be different than olivia thought. how is that any different than a husband finding out after the wedding that his wife is a justin bieber fan? and that wouldn't be grounds for annulment. well maybe that would. >> i would totally right bieber into the prenup. the difference is there is a difference between a different name and a different person. this is not -- if you imagine a situation where joe dimaggio is at the altar with marilyn monroe and she calls herself normal gene. he is not going to walk away -- she calls her self gnome jean.-- norma he is not going to walk away because he knows he is still marrying marilyn monroe. this is like great britain's king edward marrying bart simpson instead of wallis simpson. [laughter] >> page 12 of your brief, you argue that sebastian agreed to marry olivia to claim immigration benefits. sebastian had no other rational reason to accept olivia's proposal. are you aware that the role of olivia was claimed by telling carter and michelle pfeiffer. no other rational reason? [laughter] >> maybe he just -- >> because it was so unusual for a royal to fall in love with a foreign actor? [applause] [laughter] >> there is an issue -- prince harry may have an issue about this. >> fair enough. here is what i would say about that. to the point about sebastian not having a different reason for marrying her other than the fact that he needed to claim citizenship, i think that is exactly what was going on. you have a situation where olivia fell in love with someone completely different. someone who will her and one her. yada yada yada. the only thing sebastian said to her. the first thing he's dead is i will. this is not the person that she thought. it is very clear what his thought process was. he washes ashore, sees olivia, she proposes marriage to him, and he says i am not throwing away my shots. i am not throwing away my shot. i swim to this country. i'm young, soggy, and hungry. [laughter] that is what he is thinking. [applause] what i don't understand is your timing. why would your client want to annul the marriage right now? i hear the tax benefits will be in or miss for two wealthy people getting married in 2018. she should just hang on, don't you think? >> i'm not really sure how that whole thing is going to shake out. [laughter] i think the problem with -- just to get back to the immigration argument and the argument is that because sebastian was protected by the deferred action against taxiways -- castaways act. he did not need to marry her hastily because he was protected by that. but, daca might not be able to sebastian at all. he is the known associate of antonio. >> but i don't really understand why would anyone want to be a citizen of elyria. you have this guy running around with yellow stockings, people are drinking and quaffing. sebastian says is everyone mad here? >> that sounds nice to me actually. >> so i want to ask you a hypothetical. this is a real hypothetical. [laughter] if judge jackson falls in love with judge griffith's yellow stockings and then she decides to marry the next strange, stout, smiling fellow who shows up in yellow stockings because he reminds her of judge griffiths, is judge griffiths really to blame if it doesn't work out? maybe olivia just have a type? >> first of all, judge griffiths can carry off the yellow much better than malvolio can. but the problem is she married a stranger. she thought she was in love with one person and thought to was marrying that person. i will tell you, this jurisdiction has had this issue before. when lady britney spears -- duchess of fresno accidentally married that guy at that drive through thing in las vegas. this court permitted her to annul that union. her only defense was oops, i did it again. >> so your argument seems to be look what you made me do. [laughter] >> but, miss stetson he did identify himself as sebastian. and as groucho marx said, who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? >> but i think that gets back to the rose point. the idea that he identifies himself as sebastian only put her on notice that this person that she loves also went by the name sebastian. it's kind of a potato potato thing. >> i prefer tomato tomato. >> my mistake i will correct the record. the issue here is not that she was marrying someone with a different name. this is not the marilyn monroe situation. this is the bart simpson situation. that is the very different situation. >> isn't our standard much higher than that. you can't go around giving annulments like oprah's favorite things. you get an annulment and you get an annulment. [applause] [laughter] >> that's a fair point. i will promise that i won't be here again asking for another annulment on behalf of anyone else for a very long time am i hope. but let me make one other point. this is a textual point. he makes the point that you leery and statutes use the word procure and because he did not affirmatively go get anything, therefore he could not have obtained the marriage by fraud. elyria and law is based on the shakespearean constitution, which is similar to the united states constitution but with more scatological in it. it simply means achieve. three times in taming of the shrew. once in othello. even if you -- >> that is serious research. we don't do that here. [laughter] >> it is interesting to me that you have seemed to abandon an argument on the troubling issue of the fact that he identified himself as sebastian during the wedding ceremony. in your brief, you relied on an article in psychology today -- remember this? to underline the fact that olivia heard him identify himself as sebastian. we are not interested in sociological gobble the duke and we are not interested in psychological gobledy gook. >> now i am. before i abandoned it altogether. >> if you could just wrap this up. you are slightly over time. >> let me end with this then. i would ask you simply in the words of sir mitch mcconnell. duke of the ucky of kent, to say yes i believe the woman. [applause] >> i hope you have a good comeback. >> my name is dan webb. i would like to thank the mock trial fact committee. this is the first time a chicago trial lawyer has actually been given facts that can establish innocence. we have never had that happen. [laughter] by the way, i think there are two reasons why i am given three minutes before you interrupt me, is that right? >> i'm counting. >> so first of all, two reasons why you cannot annul this marriage under the law. the law of elyria there is a statute we are dealing with. now may, sometimes that doesn't matter inside the beltway. there is a statute we are dealing with, the statute says a person who procures a marriage and then uses fraud in that procurement, a marriage could be annulled. i use the word procure because if you just think about it for one minute, what is the evidence that my client procured the marriage. procured meaning i definition that he actually instituted a plan to carry out and get a certain result from her. the facts are, my guy's walking down the street and olivia. he has been beaten up by chicago hooligans. olivia shows up and says to him you must come to my house. she says it twice. here is this beautiful, gorgeous, woman with this charming personality who says you must come to my house. of course he comes to her house at that point in time. she walks in with a priest and says if your intentions are honorable, marry me. he says well, i fell in love with you because love at first sight and you are beautiful. she brings a priest into her room and they get married. where does the word procure mean that my client did anything to procure that marriage. therefore, if you follow the statute, you don't need to get near the issue of fraud, because my client didn't even procure a marriage under any circumstance. so we went under the statute. [laughter] we do. if you follow that law but we don't have to if you don't want to. if you want to follow that statute, then my client prevails in this case. i say that to you as jurors. think about that when you deliberate. [laughter] here's what i don't understand. i have never understood this case in this sense. olivia's theory -- >> now i am entitled to interrupt you. [laughter] >> this is the part i don't understand about your argument. why did sebastian want to stay married to someone who doesn't love him? since we are quoting songs, if you love her, let her go. >> actually that song does not apply to someone in sebastian's financial condition in life. [laughter] when he is about to marry a beautiful woman, she brought to her house this gorgeous, wonderful house. by the way, one of the fallacies of the case is sebastian clearly knew something weird was going on here. he knew something weird was going on. but he did not know what they claim in this case. they claim that because olivia was actually in love with cesario, therefore my client should have straightened out this whole mess in her mind. when fact, my client did not know who cesario was and did not know anything about her behavior pattern over time as far as how she was dressed and deceiving other people. he knew nothing about that. how could my client have straightened out olivia's misconception when he himself did not even possess the facts. >> how could your client have married her? who in their right mind agrees to be married after only 20 lines in a shakespeare play? >> that's a good question, your honor. although, if you think about it, according to the facts, men fall in love with this woman continually. at the drop of the hat. for no reason whatsoever. my client has testified that that happen to him. love at first sight. admittedly, he found out she was wealthy and had a station in life that might make him better off if he will that plan. but that is not fraud. you're not going to annul a marriage because my client actually saw that he was getting some benefit out of this arrangement. there is no basis to annul the marriage. >> mr. webb, i have a question about our jurisdiction? >> i'm a trial lawyer. [laughter] [applause] >> you still have to answer my question. [laughter] >> so your client claims he is a devoted husband and a saving influence on olivia's life. but to me, sorting out this marital dispute sounds like a political question. how, how can the courts possibly develop a judicially manageable family for successful marriage. you see the woman over there with the beautiful white hair? she and i have been happily trying to figure that out for 53 years and we still don't have an answer. i don't have an answer. [applause] >> your honor, i don't actually have any way to answer that question. however, since that is not the law that we are supposed to follow in this case, since we're supposed to be following this pesky little statute here -- >> i was asking you a jurisdictional question. >> the chief judge said that i as a trial lawyer do not have to address that. >> can you at least produce the long for marriage license? -- long form marriage license? [laughter] [applause] >> i cannot produce that, your honor. >> one thing that is interesting about this case is that if this high court in elyria is concerned about whether there is any equity or lack of equity in this case, if you think about it, both sides to this bargain actually got the benefit they were seeking. number one, there is no question that olivia wanted to end up having the male version of viola which happened to be sebastian who was her brother. she got exactly what you wanted in this bargain. >> it's interesting that you should talk about gender. i'm trying to figure out what it has to do with this. record is clear that the lower court judges who ruled in your client's favor work quote all mail. judges lower, weinstein, so what do we take away from that? >> we did like the choice of the trial judges. we were very pleased with that although we are confident that this panel here -- by the way i don't know, i tried to resist myself several times over. i don't know what the role of gender has to do with this case. i'm very confused about that. by the way, did my client get some benefit out of this bargain? the facts say well, he fell in love with her, it was love at first sight, yes but he got a benefit. in his station of life, through a rash decision, when you could judge and say why would anybody judge and make a decision in 30 minutes to marry anybody? >> have you seen the bachelor? >> yes. although by the way, he actually had a motive to increase his station in life by marrying a beautiful woman, a magnetic personality, very wealthy, does that mean he committed fraud just because he wanted -- that that fell into his lap that they? -- that day? and by the way, under the facts of the case, he felt confused that night. he actually count confused. he had no idea that there was anything in her mind that he could straighten out. he did not know about these facts. under fraud, under the law of fraud -- >> so he thought that she just liked him at first sight to? >> i don't -- he testified to -- >> seriously? >> in the play itself it says he is confused. he wasn't quite sure why she was proposing. >> we saw the video tape about two weeks ago in this very area. this guy is no ryan gosling. what makes him think that anyone would fall in love with him? >> let's just assume that's correct. your honor, that is correct. she would have had no reason to believe a woman with that station in life would have anything to do with him. where is the fraud? he announced himself as named sebastian. >> no way. as aaron burr would say, none of us were in the room when it happened. [laughter] the transcript by mr. shakespeare does not include that fact. i understand you have been provided that but since we are not on the wire, we do not actually know what was said. why should we believe that he actually had sebastian? >> because your group year gave -- here gave me those facts and told me that i was sworn under duty to follow those facts. >> mr. webb, i hate to do this but i have a serious question for you. maybe i will never get invited back, but here's my serious question. you say that sebastian is not in the marriage for money, nobility, or favorable immigration status. so why in the world does he want to remain in the marriage? and more important, wouldn't there be some serious constitutional question if we compelled olivia to stay in a marriage against her will? >> no. [laughter] >> that isn't unfair answer -- that is an unfair answer to a fair question. you cannot hide behind eating eight trial judge. even trial courts have to act under the constitution. >> really? [laughter] [applause] >> i'm actually not familiar with that doctrine that you just called. although, elyria has a law that is presumably constitutional. that law says olivia must prove fraud by my client, meaning he made a false statement to her in which he did it to procure the marriage. >> not necessarily. omissions can be an act of fraud as well. in your view, are there any omissions that establish fraud? >> how about failure to mention a currents bowels or once age or that you still live with your mom? >> he disclosed all of that. he did not go into disguise. he was just sebastian. yes, you are 100% correct or could be fraud by concealment of a material matter. what olivia is alleging is that she mistook sebastian and thought that he was cesario. however, my client did not know who cesario was. he could not conceal something he did not know. >> what was he doing in a lariat in the first place? the domain of gods and heroes. it is a great place. he left it to go to elyria? you admit it is a lot like illinois. [laughter] i just don't get it. can you help me? >> i can't help you. >> ok. [laughter] >> how much time do i have left? [laughter] >> you can still take your time if you wanted. >> do i just -- let me just say one thing -- to answer your question about concealment, there is no question, but my can't possibly conceal something he doesn't know. he could not possibly have explained to olivia this mistaken issue that she had in her mind's eye. he could not possibly do that because he did not know anything about it. he thought his sister was dead. he had no way of knowing that by a less had become -- had no way of knowing that viola was cesario. he could not possibly straighten out that confusion. >> can you speak to the petitioner's argument about the immigration status as a reason. i'm trying to understand your point about why sebastian would have wanted to marry her. it seems to me -- petitioner says that immigration benefits are the reason. you don't speak to it in your brief. i can think of other reasons, maybe he just wanted access to her fleet of private jets and helicopters. that seems to be all the rage these days. they get you places faster than you otherwise would. >> there are other reasons. none fell in love with her at the drop of a hat. he was charming and wealthy. those are all good reasons to want to marry somebody. way beyond immigration benefits. >> this could be some error. and he went along anyway. >> so? >> it seems to me that this is more than just some error. it's a complete comedy of errors. actually, that is a little unfair. >> he clearly knew something weird was going on. this woman came to him broke up a fight, asked him to come to her home, and he is getting there trying to figure out what to do but he does not know anything at all about cesario and she says if you will marry me, but there is no fraud in that. >> you have a fallback argument? even if we find fraud but i don't catch that. it looks like we might find fraud. >> that's what i'm worried about. >> what's the waiver about? >> i was trying not to go to that argument. it's actually a good argument. it's really a good argument. >> your argument is even if we find the fraud, we should still keep the marriage together. because of the waiver? even the illyrian olympics do not allow that the anymore. why should we follow that rule now? it's a new thing, but it is still the rule in elyria. >> reading the case lock you have written here, which i am sworn to follow as a lawyer, under the doctrine of labor, if you discover you have been cheated and defrauded, you have to immediately abandon the transaction immediately. what happened here is that when olivia found out about this entire fraud, and that she was mistaken, what did she do? she didn't abandon the marriage whatsoever, she wanted to make sure that the sister, viola could join her in the ranks of royalty. she had married sebastian. sebastian and she are now part of the royalty of the nation. she wanted the sister, who would be a nobody unless she became part of the royalty. she wanted the sister to marry the duke of elyria so that all four of them could be part of royalty. >> that is just way too complicated. why can you acknowledge that olivia married the wrong person. >> so what. isn't it the strongest error? why you will marry the wrong person? >> i did not know that your honor, but it makes sense to me. >> that is my argument. my argument is assuming she was truly, truly mistaken and she did not want to marry my client under any circumstances, you cannot annul the marriage under the law of the elyria. the statute -- >> that argument might work in chicago, but this is elyria. >> which argument are you talking about? >> actually, all of your arguments. [laughter] >> fair enough. >> it hadn't occurred to me that she is royalty. are they absolutely in control? can we do something to us if we rule against her? i'm sorry, your time is up. thank you very much. [applause] >> i would like to answer mr. webb's hypothetical question and point you to the question he didn't answer and then some up. mr. webb concedes that sebastian in his words clearly knew something weird was going on. but he didn't know who cesario was. he says how could his client have straighten this out? here's how, dan. ma'am, i am not cesario. that is how he strings it out. that leads to the question that mr. webb did not answer. the quote that i read to you at the beginning of the argument. when olivia, right before the marriage says to him, played meet the full assurance of your faith that my most jealous and ever doubtful soul will live at peace. he says, having sworn truth, i ever shall be true. now mr. webb says truth telling is really important. i was telling the truth. polonius who is like the sg of denmark, to thine own self be true. but the next part of his quote. well, sebastian wasn't false to any man hear he was full to a woman. boom. [applause] now, sebastian's counsel also spoke of a waiver. we hold that claim in equally ill favor. sebastian says, but look, olivia called viola sister. she thought sebastian was her mister. remember that while this whole scene played out,malvolio was mad, unshaven, tortured by the plot maria cooked up. >> is that iambic contaminant? >> yes. [applause] >> say olivia sometimes -- somehow waived her grievance. amid all this, sebastian did deceive her. we ask that you judicious view believe her. [applause] and last, before i take my seat, i ought to give great thanks to my wing man. [applause] >> all rise, the honorable bench will now deliberate. >> please be seated. while the honorable bench deliberates, you the jury will also cast your vote. the tokens that you have, the question is should sebastian and olivia's marriage be an old. if you believe it should be, use the blue token. if you believe it should be binding, use the red. the question again is should the marriage the annulled. blue if it should be, read if it should be binding. vote just once. [laughter] [crowd noise] >> please welcome back abbe lowell for tonight's discussion. >> while we wait for two chairs to calm, this is the great part where i get to bill while we let the judges deliberate. perfect. as to the voting, even though dad is here, this is not illinois rules. you only vote once. it is my great, great pleasure again, and i'm thrilled to have david stacy here. [applause] david leads the hrc's federal price program. he has an extensive animal career and legislative career -- an extensive federal career and legislative career. let's start. what do we know about same-sex couples living as common-law spouses in the elizabethan period? >> people did not identify around sexual orientation. but we do know is they did live together and clearly had sexual relationships and have long-lasting commitments in elizabethan time. especially in the theater. [laughter] speaking of the theater, thinking about it this way, 12 night is being performed in elizabethan times and now. you had only men actors, portraying the roles of men and women wear in this play one of the actors playing a woman then turns back to be playing a man. what does that additional layer of cross-dressing add to the already blurred lines? how does that apply across what you looked at across the history of theater? >> other than a lot of confusion, in elizabethan england women could not be on the stage. they really have no choice. one of the things it shows is it provided a forum to be able to express feelings, ideas, identities that they could not express in their daily lives. i think the confusion that that creates, the questions that creates, the questions -- challenges to the status quo that that creates that shakespeare was able to take advantage of. >> that is true even now, right? we explore the contour of relationships sometimes first on the stage and then it works its way back into the rest of society and you've now doubt that that was true in elisa be than time -- in elizabethan time as well. >> it shows with gay and lesbian people with will and grace. and shows like transparent and orange is the new black. then, society begins to have a different understanding of what is possible and what can happen. we go from the year 1600 to the year 2017. bring us up-to-date. what is the status after the supreme court's rulings today. the supreme court of the united states as well as the supreme court of elyria. into the new situation of law. everybody thought the issues solved and resolved and the law of the land was. is that right, where are we today? >> i think we are halfway through. it was only 2003 that the supreme court outlawed sodomy prohibition. a little more than a decade where we have gone from that to same-sex marriage. every territory in the united states you can get married if you are gay or lesbian. but at the same time, we don't have employment protections. only about half of the states have employment protection. we have challenges to that, like the recent case that the supreme court heard about the baker in colorado who refused to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. so we are halfway through this development. the law has caught up in some places, provides for a protections, but even just today the supreme court refused to hear the evans case on sexual orientation and whether the 11th circuit sexual discrimination protects people. we are seeing circuit split their where the course -- the courts chose not to see that case. in the united states and around the world today, in the last 15 years, there have and what the law says and what people do. i want to go back with you again based on the research you are so happy to do for us. what do we know about the societies going backwards and looking away, more than neutral when it came to relationships among same-sex all the way back starting with the elizabethan period. >> the catholic church has long had prohibition against same-sex activity. henry viii outlawed homosexuality and it was punishable by death. we have even worse examples outside of england where the catholic church was still in charge of torturous depths. at the same time, you see people living their lives in a different way. there were certainly people who lived together. people like christopher marlowe the poet, who was well thought to have same-sex partners, same-sex lovers, and so that is something you saw happening quietly in many cases. people did it under the radar. there are lots of stories about women who chose to live as men in order to be able to earn a living, to express their gender identity in a way that was more comfortable, be able to have greater opportunity then women in society. >> and you mentioned earlier, i want to come back to the concept, has it been in your looking back that the acceptance or the turning the other way or having the law that says one thing, but the practice that says others was basically something in which theater was carved out? >> there was a greater tolerance for sure. that is the theater, so they look the other way. theater people are a little strange, but it is ok. there was a greater space that the theater carved out in a way that was different and was putting a mirror to society but also warping the picture. >> what is on the way up in terms of issues about marriage or relationships or the other issues. what is coming up that we will pay attention to this term or in the lower courts? >> the masterpiece case heard we will see a decision sometime before the end of june. it is whether the public accommodations law that is law in colorado will apply in the case of this providing a cake. is it artistic expression or is it you are open for business and you provide a service to the public you cannot take a group of people protected under law and not provide them service because you are open to the public. in the case of race, where it was a race based case. the owner of piggy park did not want to survey mixed-race group and refuse to serve them. they won that case. public accommodation means you have to serve everyone who comes in the door without discriminating on one on the prohibited basis. we will also see the cases around nondiscrimination on whether sexual discrimination and general identity are forms under the discrimination law. >> last question. will you as the case works its way up, surprised as some were about the tactic to try to rebut the court's decision as to what is allowed as a protected right with trying to find another constitutional right? >> i was a little surprised, but not so surprised because they are very tapping away from directly challenging lb qt. there were protesters on both sides. it is such a robust endorsement of artistic expression from the far right was startling. [laughter] i have heard that the supreme court of elyria has reached its decision as you have reached your. please write me in thanking david for not just being here but helping us to know about something we didn't know about. [applause] [gavel] >> all rise. [laughter] >> my umbrella. [laughter] >> please be seated. >> we are prepared to announce our judgment. although, there was a chief justice that was able to persuade his colleagues to just let him talk by himself and not have additional comments, i am totally unable to do that with expect to this unruly group. i will announce mine and then in seniority order we will continue , to do that and then i will explain what the consequences are. [laughter] so, two weeks ago we saw on this very stage a virtual reality videotape. in that videotape, we saw -- perhaps it was for budgetary reasons -- the priest who performed the wedding ceremony was actually feste the fool. and as it turns out any full cannot marry someone in illyria. there is no marriage and therefore no harm and no injury and therefore no standing. therefore, we have no jurisdiction over this case. [laughter] >> well, i disagree that he -- i'd disagree vehemently with this. so, we have heard two excellent arguments tonight. although they sound in fraud -- at its core this is a question about marriage. and who are we to judge the love or lack there of between olivia and sebastian? in a completely different case, william shakespeare declared marriage is a matter of more worth than to be dealt in by attorney ship. [laughter] >> justice. >> i too agree there is no --isdiction [laughter] >> this really is a d.c. circuit judge >> i want to follow up on something i colleague said. you may not have recognized this, but the argument that he gave finding no jurisdiction is one with which i agree. i agree with his as well, because what he identified as this is a political question. i think everything is a political question. [laughter] the supreme court was wrong. it was 8-1, and i am still upset about it. -- there isything another reason. it is more fundamental why we do not have jurisdiction. this case is not right. ceremony, the wedding ceremony was performed that the couple never cut the wedding cake. this was overlooked in the arguments. i was stunned. they never cut the wedding cake. i believe we must hold this case in a bands until whether we know whether a wedding cake is fundamental to the right to resolvend not until we that issue that we can take up this one. no jurisdiction. medical question. so, i don't know how to follow that. [laughter] the counsel for olivia's brief pointed out olivia was kind of the woman whose name escapes me who was courted by jerry mcguire in the movie, you know that. the famous philosopher who was theured by his speech and whole, you had me at hello, thing. i think the key phrase from jerry mcguire that applies at this case is, show me the money. [laughter] after all, follow the money, that is where you will always get the answers. he married her for the money. we a novel this thing. annul this thing. court judgestrict and so i don't know anything about jurisdiction. [laughter] >> just to summarize -- [laughter] [applause] three votes for no jurisdiction which means they have to remain married. one to baton today. and one for annulment. you guys are stuck with each other. how did the jerry come out? jury comeome out -- out? no one knows. and now we will deliver the jury's verdict. you, our audience. this is been the mock trial, we have done this since the 1990's. this is probably our two decades. i have been involved for a wild. this porch of the moment i have been waiting for. [laughter] you will remember, for all of you in the jury, this is filled with the red tokens. the red tokens represent no, the marriage should remain binding. the blue tokens are yes, the marriage should be annulled. [laughter] [applause] >> marshall token. >> all rise. of aconcludes the case olivia and sebastian, brought to you by the shakespearean theater company bar association. we hope you enjoy the evening. please enjoy the rest of your evening. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> tonight, look at the internet, 5g, and other telecom issues. featuring john sponsor and kyle daily. have a lot ofes work to do. ultradensefast, wireless broadband networks, how is that stage? the central ingredient to extending were brought into more americans but also ensuring our global competitiveness is this wonderful technology called broadband. to companies are committed providing the fiber, the resources, the infrastructure, the networks to get more broadband coming to more americans. it takes the right amount of investment, it takes the right type of business models, but also takes the right type of smart, 21st century forward-looking policy frameworks to accelerate, invest, and incentivize the innovation is required to move forward. innovators"e tonight on c-span two. years, one oft 20 the nation's top nonfiction authors has joined us for a three-hour conversation about their work. just for 20, in-depth is changing course. we have invited 12 authors onto are set. books. of all types of meltzer,itehead, brad cory doctorow, and many others. their books have been read by millions across the country and around the world. if you are a reader, plan to join us for in-depth. it's an interactive program the first sunday of every month. you can talk directly to your favorite authors. it all kicks off on january 7 at noon. ignatius, a washington post columnist, joins us. you can watch it live or on-demand at the.org. tv.org.ok >> the organizers of the women's march met up at a convention new york -- detroit. in