back to our business, judge jackson, you have served as a trial cut court judge. you have served as an appellate court judge paired with any luck you are on your way to serve as a supreme court justice. now one of the things that is very different about trial court judges and appellate court judges is what their role is with respect to fact-finding. it s my belief from my time spent as a practicing lawyer that the role of fact-finding belongs at the trial court level, that s where you can look the witnesses in the eye, that s where the evidence can be amassed, that s where the trial judge has the responsibility of sifting through it. if there is a jury that the jury
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