other question and forgive me for interrupting. there s such a thing as a judicial filibuster too. trying to get to the point. i don t know you well but i ve been impressed by our interaction and you ve been gracious and charming. why in the world would you call secretary of defense rumsfelled and george w. bush war criminals in a legal filing? it seems so out of character for you? senator, you are you talking about briefs or habeas petitions i filed? i m talking about when you were representing a member of the taliban and the department of defense identified him as an intelligence officer for the taliban and you referred to the secretary of defense and the sitting president of the united states as war criminals. why would you do something like that? it seems so out of character? well, senator, i don t remember that particular
money group using dark money to accuse biden s supreme court nominee, at that point, a player to be named later. judge jackson had not been selected at this point. of being a tool or stooj of liberal activist dark money. this is a screen shot from their advertisement paid for by the jude it s crisis network. so, it s worth understanding for a moment what the judicial crisis network is and where it lies. and it lies in a network of organizations. the prevailing way political mischief is accomplished these days is with a 501 krourks 3 organization. 501 c 3 gets tax deduction and the c-4 gets to participate in political activities. and there s a fund twinned
write in a lot of ways. because of the way in which he s so fest idious with his opinions. and he s been an extraordinary mentor and role model. as you know he s on senior status and when he went on senior status, we re able to recommend the thompson to succeed him. of whom i think rhode islanders are equally proud and she has gone on senior status. and mr. chairman, i hope we ll be considering shortly an equally impressive biden nominee for her position. on an unrelated subject and weilates to yesterday s activities, you can relax a moment, your honor. this will not be a question for you. but a lot was said in the room about dark money by our republican friends are to the point where one of the headlines about yesterday read republicans hammer dark money
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