to me, that would suggest that it would affect your decisions. would you find that offensive? senator i would if i were you. i found it offensive when they said it about judge barrett. the reason i ask these questions as i have no doubt that your faith is important to you and i have zero doubt that you can adjudicate people s cases fairly if you are an atheist. if i had made out i would say soap you re the only reason i mention it, judge, you are reluctant to talk about it because it s uncomfortable. just imagine what would happen if people on late-night television called ua effing not speaking in tongues because you practice the catholic faith in a way they can relate to or found uncomfortable. is not wrong, kayleigh, and that was the tip of the iceberg of him calling out the media on the people s hypocrisy on covering these nominees. remember at a time when we had
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