the guy who argued the case to be fair actually was at the one other guy one of the top worthless
a conservative petals
but no one questions his conservative credentials longtime conservative uh... worked in the
bush administration
uh...
he thinks about our constitutional rights
he's gonna go on um...
with boxes shell with chris wallace
and destroy all
he couldn't read 'em on every single cap
so this is really fun to watch press crystals comes at him about activist judges let's see
how that turned out
the profit let's start with the issue of judicial activism seven
million californians voted for proposition eight seven million
people voted to amend the state constitution to ban same sex marriage now a single judge
over rules all of them
well that's why we have judges that's why we have an independent judiciary we do not
put the bill of rights to a vote
forty one states once prohibited
interracial marriages
uh... so that in virginia
when the supreme court finally struck that a prohibition down the president's parents
could not have been married
our fundamental rights of part of our constitution is a separation of powers and an independent
judiciary we cast
judges to make sure
that when we vote for something we're not depriving minorities of their constitutional
rights and that's what the judge did but as a leading conservative lawyer you have condemn
such judicial activism in the past let's take a look at what you said in two thousand seven
judges have taken some of those decisions off the policy cable
taking them away from the people by constitutes analyzing these issues
question isn't that exactly would judge walker did in this case
now as a matter of fact sensed eighteen eighty eight united states supreme court has fourteen
times
decided and articulated that the right to marriage is a fundamental right we're not
talking about a new right here
we're talking about whether a fundamental right something's bed
the supreme court is characterized as the most fundamental relationship
we have in this country
can be deprived of certain individuals because of the color of their skin
or because of their sexual orientation we do not permit discrimination
inequality that's why we have a fourteenth amendment that guarantees equal rights to
all citizens it's not judicial activism when judges do what the constitution requires them
to do
and they follow the precedent
of previous decisions of the supreme court
yeah he just said chris wallace for breakfast
clinton you know me for my com you just getting warmed up by the judge walker who made the
decision was appointed by ronald reagan and then later began by george h w bush he's a
libertarian and the agrees with up a lot of what ted olson is saying here and believes
that actually because for the position
and uh... he tailor made a decision isn't brilliant
for justice kennedy
because justice kennedy has voted in favor of gay rights in the past he's the swing vote
on the supreme court in cases goes all the way the supreme court
all over the case he quoted kennedy again and again and again in other words saini kennedy
what do you do disagree with yourself
it's a great decision greatly argued by ted olson he just getting warmed up on wall split
the let's whether one line i love him there's we don't put the bill of rights operable
it did not needed get out of again ted
here's where the some people see a comparison to the back although for abortion the political
process
in the case of same sex marriage was working five states in washington d_c_ have legalized
same-sex marriage now instead of letting this
we decided on a state-by-state basis you are in effect pushing the courts to pre-empt the
argument
which is exactly what they did and roe versus wade
well would you like your right to free speech
would you like fox is right to free press put up to a vote and say well a five states
have approved it let's wait till the other forty five states to these are fundamental
constitutional rights the bill of rights guarantees
fox news and you first wallace the right to speak it's in the constitution and the supreme
court is repeatedly held that the demo al of our citizens
of the equal rights stick equal access to justice under the law is a violation of our
fundamental rights yes this in courage ng that many states are moving towards equality
on the basis of sexual their uh... orientation and i'm very very the pleased about that because
it is extraordinarily damaging to our citizens are family members our brothers
our sisters are co-workers are neighbors when they are labeled second-class citizens
when the state of california as it did in this case in shrine did its constitution a
separate status for certain of its citizens
it said did immeasurable harm
we can't wait for the voters to decide that that immeasurable harm that is unconstitutional
must finally be eliminated i applaud the fact that things are changing and i think this
case is helping open people's eyes through the damage done by discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation but with all that we have to do is look into the eyes of these
individuals and aside why are we did the nine am the right to happiness that we have poured
all of our other servicemen
e
but it creates
he really had for you had paul as a shout out to you
do you like to debate whether station be a lot of bad fox news tonight the rear printer
doesn't know right
you are into women
war all hit
conf
octo mom and he bless you have a way since sunday night
this that which
it he won't talk to your audio