the judicial crisis network there is even more money pouring. here is how much poured into the last three nomination via the judicial crisis network. $21 million in time for the neil gorsuch nomination, $17 million to the brett kavanaugh nomination, $14 million to the amy coney barrett nomination. of course we don t know who the actual donor is, could be the same donor, who knows? and because we don t know who the donor is we don t know what business they might ve had with the court. i think it matters when people are seeking to influence the makeup of the court. that the public understand what business they may have before the court. anonymity hides all of that. they didn t stop with the trumpet nominee. they got up on the air, a dark
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
what justices can do about these numbers? i would encourage justices to do nothing. to speak only through their opinions. we just had a controversy who talked about the abortion case and seem to encourage people to politically organize an opposition to this law. i m sort of old school, i think justices need to speak to their opinions. but they have done that. in the last term, their cases were marked more by unanimous decisions than the sharply ideological divisions. you have this unending mantra that you hear in the media that the court is dysfunctional or that there and a lot of criticism of the justices on the right. there is no criticism of the justices on the left together, but it s the justices on the right or robotic. in reality, the trumpet nominee broke from a conservative side