the colonies, it was in the declaration of independence of what the king had done wrong that offended the colonists and caused the revolution. and the documents around the founding, and around the creation of the constitution all reflect passionate belief in the importance of the jury, including the civil jury, which as you may know from your experience and the trial court is getting to be a rarer and rarer creature. and in pact, there are trial judges who have written about how do we keep the civil jury alive? and i d like to hear your thoughts whether there s more to the civil jury than just a fact finding appendage of the trial judge. whether was seen by the founders and whether it belongs in our constitutional structure as a part of the responsible self
was in the declaration of independence of what a king had done wrong, the defendant, the colonists and caused the revolution. and the documents around the founding and around the creation of the constitution all reflect passionate belief in the importance of the jury, including the civil jury which, as you may know from your experience in the trial court, is getting to be a rarer and rarer creature. and, in fact, there are trial judges who have written about, how do we keep the civil jury alive? i d like to hear your thoughts about whether there s more to the civil jury than just a fact-finding appendage of the trial judge. whether it was seen by the founders and whether it belongs in our constitutional structure as a part of the responsible
interfere with civil juries from the colonies it was in the declaration of independence on what the king had done wrong that offended the colonists and cause a revolution. and the documents around the founding, and around the creation of the constitution, all reflect passionate belief in the importance of the jury, including the civil jury, which as you may know from your experience and the trial court, is getting to be a rarer and rarer creature. in fact there are trial judges who have written about how do we keep the civil jury alive? i d like to hear your thoughts about whether there is more to the civil jury than just a fact-finding appendage of the trial judge. whether it was seen by the founders, whether it belongs in
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
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