there is no one quite like republican candidate for governor of pennsylvania mr. doug mastriano. he insists the 2020 election was stolen from donald trump, which, of course, it was not. he supports a draconian ban on abortion. peddles vaccine disinformation. we could go on and on and on. but right now, the contest between mastriano and democratic candidate josh shapiro is being defined by hate and anti-semitism in its final days and weeks. new york times is out with a piece of reporting that says this, quote, mr. mastriano, who promotes christian power and disdains the separation of church and state, has repeatedly lashed mr. shapiro for attending and sending his children to what mastriano calls a privileged, exclusive, elite school, suggesting to one audience that it e vinced mr. shapiro s distan for people like us. it is a jewish day school where students are given both secular and religious instruction, but mastriano s language in portraying it as an elitist reserve seem
but so far we haven t seen actually a decent substantive defense of what donald trump has done from anyone who s a republican. because i have you, i also want to ask you the big case before the supreme court today, you re one of the foremost experts in the country on this. they rarely hear major gun control cases that would have the ability to change precedents. it s been about a decade. several folks have said maybe this isn t ultimately going to change much, but they are hearing it. the new york times hearing it s the first a second amendment case in nearly a decade. it may not change anything. the arguments on monday focusing on whether this new york city law has made it moot. your view of how likely they are to punt, and if they don t, what it would mean. well, i think that it s hard to read tea leaves from an argument. i suspect they will punt and not answer the question. so the case concerns new york s law which requires licensed firearms basically stay in new
the really big case before the supreme court being watched and fought over already in state houses and the campaign trail is the one the justices are going to hear on tuesday. that is day the court will hear arguments whether to declare same-sex marriage legal nationwide. they have two questions before them. number one, does the constitution require states to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? and number two, does the constitution require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of that state. the justices have addressed the oirve issue before. most notably two years ago in the be windsor case and ruled the federal government must recognize lawfully licensed same sex marriages. but next week s case is the big one. it could make same-sex marriage legal across the united states.
and oklahoma and other states are making plans for alternate methods of execution in case the court rules against them. some are throwbacks like the electric chair. and some never used before. the really big case before the supreme court being watched and fought over already in state houses and the campaign trail is the one the justices are going to hear on tuesday. that is the day the court will hear arguments on whether to declare same sex marriage to be legal nationwide. specifically the justices have two questions before them. number one, does the constitution require states to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? and number two, does the constitution require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed outside of that state? the justices have addressed the issue of same sex marriage before most notably two years ago in the windsor case. that s when the court narrowly struck down a porti