they re actually they do work primarily for overseas military is my understanding. so is it your understanding no one is involved in the taskforce that s involved with any company that would in any way profit from the recommendation made by this report if it was carried out nationally? i don t think so because nationally if this is carried out, schools are going to make decisions as to who in their school, are they going to expand school resource officers. those are relationships with the local sheriff s office, the local police department. but congressman they re training, you interrupted me. go ahead. their training is provided by local law enforcement, the law enforcement training center, for example, for the state. if gu you go to armed school personnel, i hope they utilize the private sector, not just a state function, generally would be state by state that would provide this training.
and let me show you this tweet that we re now seeing from this scotus log. justice kennedy here on the highest court, here is the tweet, final updates go to 80% likely to strike down doma. justice kennedy suggests it violates states rights or other justices see as gay rights. so states rights. why are you chuckling? well, you know, this is the influence of nate silver and 538.com that everything can be reduced to a percentage. numbers. 80% chance. actually, that sounds about right to me to tell you the truth. does it? why? i ve never reduced to a percentage like this. for a very simple reason. anthony kennedy repeatedly said during the oral arguments, why can doma, this federal law, tell the states how to define marriage? isn t that a state function? don t we rely on states, not the
someone who is concerned about gay rights although he said very little, i think nothing about the issue of whether the defense of marriage act violated gay people s constitutional rights. he was clearly very concerned that the defense of marriage act was invading the province of the state to define marriage. that s a state function, usually. and that would certainly be suggesting that he was going to strike down the law. and certainly the other liberals, the four democratic appointees looked like they were going to vote to strike it down. one other thing i wanted to throw in and i like your opinion too, justices scalia, ali do as well as chief justice robert all asked a lot of questions about whether if the reverse were in effect in other words, if the congress passed a law that said same sex marriage was okay for
to uphold this law, right? judges like scalia says it s a perfectly fine reason for laws a and scalia said that ends the moral legislation, won t be able to ban prostitution and terrible things and scalia i m sure would be happy to solidify it as a state function. anthony kennedy was troubled by aspects of this law, he was especially concerned on intrusion of state s rights, the power to define their own idea of health, safety, and morals, and he s very likely to rule against the law in question. let me go back to your question about skim milk
information that we need answers to and we ve received virtually none of those. there are several reasons i think why you find states rejecting it. first of all is the cost. it is an unknown figure and all of us are struggling to meet our current obligations under medicaid and to add a factor that is an unknown quantity is simply nothing that is not acceptable. bill: governor, i want to go through a series of questions here in the three minutes that we have. you know what your detractors say, they say you are just playing politics. what do you say to them? i say absolutely not. you know, historically the regulation of insurance has been a state function, that s why we have state insurance commissioners. we don t have a federal insurance commissioner. we will have one, of course, maybe not in name but in practicality. it is not politics, it is the cost, and the question of state control over an issue that is so important to the citizens of our states. bill: at 17 some suggest the stat