inquiry. candidate should be able and then m&a should be able to discuss her judicial philosophy. and we really haven t seen that. we are not it s introduced it in methodology, but specifically how to interpret the follow-up delma constitution and statutes, we may be seeing that in the future. i hope so. stay with fox news since we continue coverage of the historic confirmation more carnage unfolding in
amendment substantive due process. who gives them the right to do that? if it s not mentioned in the constitution, where does the right of the court to substitute its views for that of the elected representatives of the people, where does that come from? the court has interpreted the 14th amendment to include this component, the unenumerated right does substantive due process and the court has said that the kinds of things to qualify are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, excuse me, are deeply rooted in our nations history. those are standards that identify a narrow set of activities. well, the judge in the obergefell case, justice roberts
that there are limitations on regulation, even if people are regulating pursuant to their s sincerely held religious belief. do you agree that a marriage is not mentioned in the constitution? it is not mentioned, no. and religious freedom is mentioned in the first amendment explicitly, correct? it is. do you share my concern that when the court takes on the role of identifying in on enumerated right, in other words it is not mentioned in the constitution, and creates a new right, declaring that anything conflicting with that is unconstitutional, that that creates circumstance for those who may hold to traditional beliefs, like something as important as marriage, that they
applaud, but why isn t substantive due process just another way for justices to hide their policymaking under the guise further constitution? welcome of the justices have interpreted the due process clause of the 14th amendment to include a substantive provision that the right to due process, they have interpreted that to mean not just procedural right relative to government action, but also the protection of certain personal rights related to intimacy and autonomy, and it includes things like the right to rear one s children. i believe the right to travel, the right to marriage,
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 where people have so sincerely held religious beliefs, doesn t that create a conflict between what people may believe as a matter of their religious doctrine or faith in what the federal government says is the law of the land? well, son of dirt that is of our right. when there is a right, it means