unenumerated fundamental right, and the voters whatever they ve said is irrelevant because we, five members of the supreme court, are going to decide what the law of the land should be. and anybody who disagrees with us will be labeled a bigot or be accused of discrimination, even if those their beliefs happen to flow from sincerely held religious conviction like the definition of a marriage between a man and a woman. but you ve already told me that you see why this is a concern. i see why it is a concern, and i would just say that, although the supreme court is not, you know, bound in the sense of having to apply prior precedent, there is stare decisis in our system. there are now standards in the stare decisis world that the supreme court applies when it when it s asked to
that there are limitations on regulation, even if people are regulating pursuant to their s sincerely held religious belief. do you agree that a marriage is not mentioned in the constitution? it is not mentioned, no. and religious freedom is mentioned in the first amendment explicitly, correct? it is. do you share my concern that when the court takes on the role of identifying in on enumerated right, in other words it is not mentioned in the constitution, and creates a new right, declaring that anything conflicting with that is unconstitutional, that that creates circumstance for those who may hold to traditional beliefs, like something as important as marriage, that they
that right. because we come of the nine people sitting on the supreme court, have decided that it shall be the law of the land and no legislator can pass any law that conflicts with that. what other unenumerated rights are out there? or can you not say? senator, i cannot say. it is a hypothetical that i am not in a position to comment on. the rights that the supreme court has recognized as substantive due process rights are established in its case law. your honor, this is not a trick question. i understand. i m just not in the position to speak can you understand why
with a case in the argument is going to be made that this is an unenumerated fundamental right, and the voters, whatever they ve sighed is irrelevant. because we, five members of the supreme court, are going to decide what the law of the land should be. anybody who disagrees with us will be labeled a bigot. or be accused of discrimination. even if their beliefs happen to flow from sincerely held religious conviction, like the definition of a marriage between a man and a woman. but you ve already told me that you see what this is a concern. i see why it s a concern and i would just say that although the supreme court is not bound in the sense of having to apply prior precedent, there is star a decisive s in our system. there are now standards in the star a decisive s world, when
and so i m limited in what i can say about them. i m aware that there are cases. i m not asking you to decide a case or predict how you would decide in the future. 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 where people have sincerely held religious beliefs. doesn t that necessarily create a conflict between what people may believe is a matter of their religious doctrine or faith and what the federal government says is the law of the land? well, senator, that is the nature of a right, that when there is a right, it means that there are limitations on