Stay updated with breaking news from Obergefell case. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
Constitutional design. so in all cases i m looking neutrally at the arguments of the party, presumably in a case like this there would be arguments made on both sides of the issue. your honor, if you will forgive me, one reason i think the supreme court is different is because in your previous capacity as a trial judge, of course you are bound by circuit court precedent. on the circuit court europe bound by the supreme court precedent. but as a member of the united states supreme court you will be bound by nothing. you will be unaccountable to the voters. so well respectfully, senator, yes technically so you re not going to be able to find the answer in some while book somewhere. you re going to be presented ....
Supreme court in the sentencing realm has made the guidelines, the sentencing guidelines advisory. they used to be mandatory. judges used to have to calculate the guidelines for sentencing purposes and then essentially apply a sentence within the guideline range. in a case called united states versus booker the supreme court determined that the guidelines are advisory now so they do not have to be applied in every case, that you have to calculate them, but judges have more freedom to give effect to congress the various provisions in the statute related to the sentencing. in booker and in the guinness progeny, the supreme court made it clear that judges ....
Is the ultimate fact finder. if you re in a nonjury trial the judge is the ultimate fact finder. then the case goes up on appeal and it comes up with a record, a record of fact in the case. in my view that record of fact comes up to the appellate court is actually a constraint on the power of the appellate court to go wandering off. the court is obliged to consider the appeal based on the factual record that was adduced in the district court. so you having lived in both those houses, the trial court house and the appellate court house, tell me a little bit about what the change meant to you as you went from being a trial judge to an appellate judge. thank you, senator. ....
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 ....
To do that? if it s not mentioned in the constitution, where does the right of the court to substitute its views for that of the elected representatives of the people, where does that come from? the court has interpreted the 14th amendment to include this component. the unenumerated right to substantive due process and the court has said that the kinds of things that qualify are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty or deeply rooted in our nation s history and tradition. those are standards that identify narrow set of activities. well, judge, in the obergefell case, judge roberts in his dissent noted that the court invalidated marriage laws ....