constitutional design. so in all cases i m looking neutrally at the arguments of the party, presumably in a case like this there would be arguments made on both sides of the issue. your honor, if you will forgive me, one reason i think the supreme court is different is because in your previous capacity as a trial judge, of course you are bound by circuit court precedent. on the circuit court europe bound by the supreme court precedent. but as a member of the united states supreme court you will be bound by nothing. you will be unaccountable to the voters. so well respectfully, senator, yes technically so you re not going to be able to find the answer in some while book somewhere. you re going to be presented
0 christianity, judaism, islam, embraces traditional definition of marriage, correct? i am aware that 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 of state marriage laws, that it will inevitably sit 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? woman? well, senator, these issues are being litigated, as you know, throughout the courts as people raise issues. i am limited with 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 to, i m just asking isn t it apparent that when the supreme court decides that 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 w