with the christian group people of praise saying the justice s affiliation with the organization means she cannot rule impartially. we re back with dan henninger and bill mcgurn. so, bill, the stakes in this case, free speech rights of the web site designer versus the rights of lgbtq people to be served in public stores, services. who do you think gets the better argument before the court? yeah. finish well, i think the web designer or does. we re here again because they never decided the issue in the colorado cake bakers. they didn t decide whether cake is speech, and they kind of punted on issue. they said colorado civil rights commission was so biased that he couldn t get a fair shake. now the issue has come back cleanly. and and as you point out, both
let s see. picking her, childs, would demore allize the base, side with corporate america. the fact that lindsey graham is vouching for her should give the white house pause. bernie sanders pac director. you didn t know that all these people were declaring war on judge childs? senator, i did not. i m not saying you did. you said you didn t know, i will take you at your word. but i am saying what is your judicial philosophy? i have a methodology that i use in my cases in order to insure that i am ruling impartially and that your judicial philosophy is to rule impartially. to rule impartially, no, and
0 whether or not they still present a threat to the united states or the world at large and i think it s six months, maybe a year. but that goes on at least on an annual basis, and if there is a determination that this person still represents a threat to the united states, they are continued to be confined. that s the way the system works. are you okay with that? as a policy matter, senator, i m not speaking to my views. my understanding is the periodic review system is an executive branch determination of whether or not they are going to continue to hold people. does that make sense to you as a way to deal with these detainees? senator, i m not in a position to speak to the policy or discretion of the executive branch regarding how they are going to handle detainees. the reason i mention is because in one of the briefs you argued the executive branch doesn t have that option. if you had had your way, the executive branch could not do periodic reviews about the danger the detai
to hear a case of whether medicaid can be paid to planned parenthood affiliates for nonabortion related services. planned parenthood tweeted out a link that slammed you as, quote, delusional, for thinking this move means that kavanaugh will support abortion rights, uphold roe v. wade in the future. i want to give you a chance to respond. this is the point i was trying to make. planned parenthood was brett kavanaugh s number one opponent. they went after him with everything that they had. yet when it came to this case, he was able to put that aside and rule impartially, independently. it s notable that he was the key vote. it takes only four votes on the court to decide to hear a case like that.
felt vindicated by supreme court justice brett kavanaugh s decision to not want to hear a case involving whether medicaid can be paid to planned parenthood affiliates for non-abortion related services. in response to your saying that you thought it vindicated you, planned parenthood tweeted out from a liberal website for, quote, delusional that you think this move would support abortion rights and uphold roe v. wade in the future. i wanted to give you an opportunity to respond. this is the point i was trying to make. planned parenthood was brett kavanaugh number one opponent. they went after him with everything they had, and yet when it came to this case he was able to put that aside and rule impartially, independently. and it s notable that he was the key vote. it takes only four votes on the court to decide to hear a case like that.