the fix being put in. well certainly the jury system is designed in that manner, that citizens are brought in from the community when we pick juries we ask as judges do any of you in this pool to have any connection to anyone? it to you screen them for conflicts of interest? heavily. that s what we call we don t do that with people who come to congress. they come with their conflicts of interest right on their lapels, sometimes hidden in their back pockets. but jerry s not so, correct? in fact i would be a reason to expel if someone from a jury. we even ask if any of you as judges do any of you know me? if you do you ll have to let me
and if in that one case you try to fix them, you ve likely committed a federal offense. tampering with the jury is a pretty significant thing is it not? it is. if anybody tampered with a jury of yours, how would you respond? oh, very seriously. so the jury lives in a protected environment from a lot of the political power and the danger of corruption that the elected branches often suffer. do you have thoughts about the importance of the civil jury in that regard as the bastion where people can go, where they ll get a square deal from regular citizens and can stand toe-to-toe with the lawyers for however big or mighty an opponent they may have with almost no danger let s put it that way. little danger. lessened danger. of the fix being put 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