is -- yeah. guess it's going to happen tonight. [laughter] a text.get yeah, right. the thing for me isn't that i it again.ant to do >> we put ourselves on a four-year plan and i think we have a long way to go. for 2016. be ready granted we are excited and proud thinkre we've come but i we have to be about perfect as a national party to win a national cultural vote. i think the democrats can be good and win. we've got to be great. we have to do that, have a party that excesses over the boring stuff like the mechanics and the ground game. nobody wants to talk about these kind of things.

the candidates are really important. i think the mechanics are even more important. the only hesitation i've ever had is i think it's important to give back to normal life. a nine-year-old, four-year-old, have a backyard and a simpler operation. >> dear kids like it here? -- new york it's like it here? it's obvious when we go back to kenosha, it is life in wisconsin. theou talked about rejection of the president's policies. i am curious about how you explain some of the ballot initiatives.

what do you take from that in terms of whether republicans should start thinking about lines like that? >> these are the issues that the legislators have to look at and they have to decide how they want a government agent these different dates. they had differences and the national agenda. as far as minimum wage and marijuana is concerned, i personally don't believe that artificially raising the minimum wage is going to put more money in peoples's pockets because eventually inflation goes up and products cost more. false hope.s a as far as marijuana is

concerned, i'm opposed to that. i don't think that we need to be promoting things like that with kids and with high school kids. i'm not in favor of it. >> legislators have to consider everything. am a i am thenic one that has to understand and get the acts together. you really need to look at this issue regarding minimum wage and marijuana. this is what legislators, governors have to do in order to determine how they can best governor in their individual states. in their individual states. chris christie will govern differently than the governor in tennessee.

everything is different. if that is the great thing about democracy in the united states. [indiscernible] in 2016, you will have a broader map and higher turnout. you won't necessarily be able to run against somebody with a 40% approval rating. when you talked before about the data operation, it never ends. it have you had a chance yet to figure out with the success you've had tuesday where it needs to go from here? 2016,t when you get to you can't compete theoretically with the democrats.

not completely yet. it has only been a few days. but i have an idea and my guess is that we will have to be three ines bigger than we were 2014. i think is going to take a massive amount of money and a program in the background states starting immediately. not pulling staff out of any presidential battleground state. it is hard to do. i think we need to have a full-blown field operation in the nice thing

about what happened on tuesday is that our investors at the rnc are excited that the mechanics worked. they can see that a competent program on the ground is something they are willing to in 2015. again >> it appears right now to be an easier map for democrats. the swing states they have in the bank a lot more like laurel votes and you guys do. you need states like ohio, florida, virginia, and some combination of purple as opposed to solid red. is there any candidate that changes that? path?it that narrow a >> if you think about where we

were as a national party a few weeks ago being $26 million in debt and where we were with 80 employees and barack obama had 800 employees. we did not have a lot initially to offer. mitt romney lost by a quarter million votes. granted elect oral college was pretty lopsided but vote totals, you talk about 100,000 in ohio,a, virginia, obviously new hampshire. we are talking about working like dogs to grow the electorate and turn the dial a few little notches in order to win. if we work hard and get a candidate on the ballot that people want to sit down and have a beer with, i think we can win. tell you this. if we did not win purple states on tuesday, it would've an

difficult for me to sit here and make a case for you that if we couldn't win the purple state and a good environment with good candidates, it would be difficult to tell you we would be able to win with 75% or 80% turnout. i get the point. my answer to mr. cheney's question would probably be different. if we did not win in colorado or north carolina. is thatthe challenge our data and are targeting has to continue to improve and i think it will. our early vote program has to decisively beat the democrats. if you saw what we were doing, we were targeting low propensity voters. we were finding the consumer characteristics of people, how many kids they have, how much money they make, what magazines

they subscribe to, taking the information that looks like voters that would be our voters and matching it up to the voter rolls of people that don't always vote. probability republicans but low propensity voters, targeting them early, and we will have to do an even better job of that to win in places like colorado, iowa, and north carolina in order to win in 2016. >> we will go to your hometown paper. >> we have these states where has dominated the presidential level and still winning midterms. dominating anden still losing presidential's. 2014what happened in

change the size of the presidential challenge for you? it says we need to be perfect. why do you have to be perfect? you talk about the demographics. >> i don't think we've been showing up enough and hispanic asian and black communities. map, whook at the where presents milwaukee -- who represents milwaukee? democrat state senator, democrat state festival. who is at the church sunday morning in the hispanic community e? the democrats. you can win in a midterm with

2.5 million people voting, right? and the recall. and you feel great about the performance in the midterm but if you are not showing up and in thoseard communities on a year-round basis, it comes back in the presidential and you ultimately have a big problem. the things that we have fundamentally changed is putting in black, hispanic, asian communities on a permanent to engage voters, register voters. to tell people what it is we believe in as a republican party. open up college republican chapters across the country. i think these are important steps for us moving forward as a national party and you will see

when we get the actual numbers from the secretary of state's office, you will see that we have made a lot of gains and improvements because we are showing up and making our case and trying to be better and do better in those communities. been great.ers have i'm not asking for them to be shorter but we have about 10 people on deck and we are not going to get to all of them. next run the new york times. times. from the new york aswhat keeps you up at night you head towards 2016. what is the biggest hurdle? >> to be able to continue what we are doing and raising the funds necessary to scale and do what we did in the presidential. . i know it will take a massive lift on the ground.

helpingthe white house us raise money and doing what we can to compete and be prepared when we are going to have a nominee that is not going to be , and no nominee will have a year-round field operation. they will be making sure that they win a primary and it will take the republican national committee to fill that void and it will be extremely expensive. >> you said it would be a nuclear threat and i am curious what one does. they said they were thankful for democrats for sidelining the best during the election cycle.

i'm curious if you share that viewpoint and if you want to run an op-ed -- did you think it was a mistake to distance themselves from the president? i'm not in a position to know and i don't think anyone is right now without extensive ,ieldwork polling postelection real scientific work and interviews. , i've heard from democrats that have stopped me and told me they were offended that the democrat sidelined the president during the election. i'm not the person to know. not heard anything that disputes that narrative among people that i've talked to and have heard from anecdotally.

>> [inaudible] >> i don't think so. the president made it so clear that he was on the ballot and his how it -- policies were on the ballot that it really did not seem to matter. i would suppose that if the president was coming into these states, they would play more and democrats would probably have done worse. there may have been a couple of exceptions but it's hard to tell. i just don't know. sometimes you just don't know. i think the republicans have to to convene about whatever possible options we have.

is that we we have can't believe anything the president says on immigration. you are hearing for the hundredth time that the -- i guess we just don't buy it. i think it goes in one ear and out the other at this point. he is telling the american people he doesn't give a darn about republicans and democrats working together. he would rather just stick it to

the republicans as much as he can and to heck with getting along and working together in washington. i agree that people are sick and tired of washington and dysfunction. it is signs of an executive amnesty. >> in 2016, it's not as favorable to you. some of which one narrowly last time around and i am wondering in the case of somebody like senator kirk in illinois that favors parts of the health care law, if the headlines early in the next congress are partisantion and repeal and potential vetoes and

overriding vetoes and that sort of thing, how much does that endanger him in a blue state? >> i think it is a state-by-state analysis and you look at my state of wisconsin and it is very individual. ron johnson will be up for reelection in 2016. mark kirk. i think it is important and i have complete faith in mitch mcconnell and speaker boehner. something that we can believe in as a party and are achievable goals. the repeat and repeat to the american people those achievable sols that are accomplished

that people can see what they invested in and voted for in a republican majority resulted in progress. that ifagree with you all we get out of this is a bunch of fighting and bickering, i would agree with you that it is not a good result. goals, clear agenda is where we are heading. kevin mccarthy has been out front on this. >> how does the map look in your mind right now? >> to win the majority of the , i don't know.

i think it's hard to tell. i think it is just impossible. atthey've touched on holes this point and it's come up in question. several people have said that polls in this election were way off or even worse, skewered to democrats. and theched on this, doctor in virginia said the whole polling industry should be .ompletely fumigated >> not as a whole. if you take polling or averages,

if you take the public polling and the averages, we see every single poll. i was talking to people about what i thought was going to happen. i generally had an idea because i would review every single poll and have an idea that tom cotton has been ahead in nine out of 10 polls that i've seen in arkansas between 4% and 6%. he ended up winning by a lot more than that but i think the pollingilling -- pointed to exactly what ended up happening on tuesday. they wondered where the republican wave was.

we will have a huge night on tuesday. we will have better information than what you will get from quick exit polling and things like that. you take that universe and you apply the consumer data and the census data and the voter data to that universe and we set various models. best case scenario and worst-case scenario and we ended up between mid-case and worst-case.

in order to get to the worst-case scenario, it would , we been a tiny loss would've had to get crushed in 25% itte by the 75 to was about dead on accurate? i have a view that as a whole, all of it collectively is hopeful predicting the outcomes. it is hard to tell what happened in virginia. why the public

polling was there. >> a follow-up question, do you think that mr. gillespie should ask for a recount? >> it's up to him. i don't know where the numbers would be right now. are prepared for whatever we can do to help him and he knows that. >> [indiscernible] against hillary clinton in 2016. [indiscernible] how do you keep the republican party perfect?

when you will have a divisive with ideologically diverse factions. how do you plan to keep it civil? and do you plan to tip the scales a little bit? they sort of when the field to make it a more perfect concept. >> people that invest in the rnc are buying what we are doing and what we are selling. we have been able to out raise .he dnc what we are doing on the

ground matters. people that have been funding the rnc will double down on our program because they know that thesting in mechanics is way that we are going to be able to win in 2016. controlcan't always everybody, we can influence how long we fight each other. we are working on a reasonable number of debates that allow candidates to make debates but not so many that it creates an unnecessary amount of fighting and bickering and unproductive activity. is goingrimary process to start somewhere after february 1. i don't see much of a chance of

having an avalanche upfront competinghe penalties with outside the window. and i think the winner take all contest is going to be a pretty massive day. it will be a winner take all. >> [indiscernible]

>> i think it is pie-in-the-sky but i think there is a very .trong feeling republicans slicing each other apart. there will will be a high level of disdain for candidates who spend their time trying to destroy other republicans. you will see people very vocal and less concerned about getting involved in the middle of candidates. be less concerned.

refraining from being vocal with candidates that go out of their way to simply just kill each other. >> we have two or three minutes left and i apologize. >> you said that the ideal bedidate for 2016 would somebody people would want to have a beer with. would you elaborate on what you think the best qualities would be. >> i think midterm elections are as far ason the past performance and i think presidential elections are about the future.

i think over tomorrow and who is going to provide the better is thefor our kids candidate that wins. necessarily the candidate that can better articulate how we will combat fair trade with china or what we will do about clean coal and fracking. it's about who is going to provide a better country for our kids because people want to be hopeful. to be want tomorrow better than today. people want to believe someone is going to provide a better future. those big things, is the type of candidate that will be able to win the white house in 2016. >> i want to thank you and sean for helping us set this up.

we hope you come back. >> tank's, everybody. appreciate it. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

pentagon foro the a briefing after today's

announcement that he wants to send 1500 more troops to iraq to help train, advise, and assist local forces in their fight against isis militants. the president asking congress for $5 billion to fund that fight. we are expecting to hear more ,rom rear admiral john kirby the press secretary during this briefing.

live at the pentagon waiting for a briefing to begin, expecting to be hearing from the pentagon's press secretary rear admiral john kirby. president obama announced today he is sending 1500 more troops to iraq. that would double the american presence there. a mission to train and advise local forces fighting against isis militants. we expect the briefing to start at any moment.

>> happy friday. i know you have all seen my , additional troops

-- to iraq. rack i'm not going to reread my statement but there is some information i would like to put out this afternoon as well and i'm sure we will dive into whatever's on your mind. issuedartment of defense supplemental civilian medical guidance today for those employed -- deployed in ebola outbreak areas. those that become ill, contract diseases, or are injured are authorized to receive medical care at a military treatment facility at no cost to the civilian employee. those treated in theater will be eligible for care in a military treatment facility or civilian medical facility at no cost to the employee. secretary hegel, the chairman issued guidance today for the implementation of -- this is the guidance

we asked the chiefs to come back and put into place while we continue to assess the efficacy of this controlled monitoring. applies to all military services that are contributing personnel to the fight against ebola at its source. the guidance for how controlled monitoring will occur, policy states which installations of been approved as control monitoring sites. fort bliss, el paso, texas. joint base langley in virginia. fort hood in texas. fort bragg in north carolina. overseas, the u.s. army garrison in germany and the u.s. army garrison in italy. capablen and criteria of treating ebola and conduct twice daily temperature checks and medical screenings.

berd and last, general to go -- jacoby has identified personnel be identified and trained to provide backup capability to the existing medical support team. i want to stress that this is not being driven by anticipation but andditional need effort to establish an additional cadre of personnel that will begin in specialized treatment as the first group we trained last month. helping them trained medical professionals. begindditional group will around november 17. >> or the purpose of television,

it would be helpful if you had a brief statement on what you announced today and what the pentagon has decided to do with regard to these troops and why. >> the commander-in-chief has authorized chuck hagel to employ to iraq up to 1500 additional u.s. personnel in a noncombat and initiate a comprehensive training effort for iraqi forces. secretary hegel made this recommendation to the president based on the request of the government of iraq, the assessment of iraqi units, the progress they have made in the field, and in concert with the coalition campaign plan to defend key areas and go on the offensive against isil. command will establish advise and assist operation centers. to provide support at the brigade headquarters.

these will be force protection capabilities. they will establish sites across iraq that will accommodate the training of 12 iraqi brigades. including three peshmerga brigades. these will be located in northern, western, and southern iraq. the training will be funded that the request administration will submit to congress as well. . the united states will work with coalition members to determine how many personnel will be required. its citizens, borders, and interests against the threat of isil and is in keeping with the mission to assist the forces as

they improve their capability against isil. helpful. last week, general dempsey said -- he hinted at this need and said the precondition for that is that the government in iraq is willing to arm the tribes. do you have assurances that the government of iraq is going to work closely with the sunni tribes and arm them? or will it be akin to the awakening? requestedent has funding to provide training to tribes operating under the auspices of the iraqi ministry of defense. we expect we will be able to .onduct some of that training

it has made it very clear that he intends to outreach. while i can't put a fine point on what that cooperation will rolelike, there will be a for city tribes. >> [indiscernible] exact time ore an date. this is been in discussion for several weeks. hegel committed -- >> he has fully committed to his job as defense secretary and leading this department. >> will it be different than 10

years ago? >> they did not all run away. we have spent a lot of money and iraqi army.ing the he left them capable and confident in the threat that they faced. that opportunity they were given, the skills they were provided, the leadership they had were squandered by the maliki government over the last three and a half years. it were not properly lead, they were not properly resourced and they were not kept properly trained. lack of will, both political and military at the disillusionment the summer.early in i think it was a surprise that they folded as quickly as they did but not every division turn and ran.

as we speak today, they are very much on the go after isil to include anbar province. it is slow and not study every -- it's aey are completely different situation. we are going in at the request of the iraqi government. we were not wanted to stay there. threats a very acute facing the government and the security forces, a threat they are trying to grapple with right now. they have acknowledged they need a little bit of help. the funding we are requesting from congress, we will be able to make significant progress. one of the reasons why we think this is a good idea is because the security forces have stiffened their spine and have gone on the offense.

shows they have good capabilities but there are gaps in some of the capabilities. >> are you asking any other country to join in this fight? >> that's a great question and i meant to say that in my answer to you. there are several other coalition partner nations that have agreed to contribute to the train, advise, and assist mission. within the last 30 minutes, the secretary wrapped up a meeting with his counterpart from denmark. and there are other nations that likewise said they would contribute. yes, there will be coalition members joining us in this effort. i think the list will continue to grow. the united states is not going to be responsible for funding this entire effort.

contributions for the coalition members. not just people but dollars as well. >> have any of the iraqi brigades selected previously received u.s. training or equipment? >> prior to 2011? i don't know, spence. iraqi brigades -- brigades have not been selected yet and will be in consultation with the government in iraq to determine that. we just don't know what brigades we are going to train. tothe specific numbers up 1500 -- >> there will be too expeditionary sites, and additional. we are still doing site surveys

of that but one will be an and bar province and another probably in the baghdad province. those are not necessarily training missions. those are advisory missions. now, the we are doing same function. ande will be several sites i can't give you an exact number but somewhere around four or five. these will be more hands-on training. and the sites are still being surveyed. those locations, it's much more hands-on training. it will bealf of dedicated to the advise and assist mission. it is around 630 or so. it's important to remember a good chunk of that will be

enabled for the advisors. not all of the 630 or so will be technically advising. there will be some support. ,he remainder of the number they will be dedicated to this building partner capacity mission. now, ino add that right terms of contributions we know we are going to secure well over 700 additional trainers will come from foreign governments. does that answer your question? by less thanown half the number to advise and assist, the rest of the number to this building partnership capacity. to 5000 --

>> you have to look at infrastructure, facilities, the ability to actually house people. there will be mixed skills and capabilities. estimatessed on best about how many people we need to train, how many sites we need and what the quality of the sites are. why is this happening now and can you assure people it has nothing to do with the political calendar and the election on tuesday? done now, quite frankly, because iraq has reached -- they have demonstrated the willingness and the skill to go after isis. they have reached a point where they need additional help and guidance. that is one of the reasons why the advising mission will take

place in anbar. it is at the request of the government in iraq. what drove this was the prime minister saying i need this extra help and i want this extra help and i welcome this help inside my country. that's what drove this. and general austin's assessment that this would be beneficial to the overarching goals inside iraq. no political angle to the timing here. it was really driven by the request from iraq and the general's assessment about this being the right thing to do and that was an assessment supported by chairman dempsey and the secretary that formally made this recommendation to the president. not only the right thing to do but the right time to do based on where we are in the campaign. you don't have to go very far back in time, chairman dempsey

alluded to this in this room a couple weeks ago. this was something that had been brewing for several weeks. >> what did they base their recommendation to the president on? >> i could not give you an exact day. this recommendation i think went over this week but i could not give you the exact day. it was precisely before tuesday. it was earlier this week. requirement for iraq at this moment? there be new people going to the country? >> these are additional. we have 1400 or so in iraq right now. tos would be additional up 1500. it doesn't mean we will get to 1500 but the authorization is up to 1500.

these will be additional personnel and as i answered to spence, broken down into two buckets. the advise and assist bucket and the training bucket. getow long will it take to these up to 1500? >> some will start flowing in as soon as this month. it will take, for the building partner capacity, it will take probably a couple of months, two to three months to get the sites prepared and the regiment started. , wethe training itself anticipate between six months and seven months. to complete the training, yes. mean they are all going to shotgun start training on the same day but roughly the training regimen will be set for

six to seven months. >> a quarter of the year? >> between eight months and 10 months total depending on, again, how long it takes to get sites prepared and a curriculum set and trainers in place. it's going to take us a little bit of time to get the personnel inside iraq. he can move quickly but it will take some weeks to get them all there. >> you say that within these numbers, there will be additional and neighbors to include force protection. is going to beer going into iraq? more apaches? not say more apaches but there'll be force protection capabilities provided along with the trainers and advisers. we are not going to put people in harm's way unnecessarily. was that?

sta's that? >> they are not combat troops? >> no more than the protection personnel there right now that is providing assistance to embassies. trained., they are they are trained troops and they will be able to defend themselves and defend the trainers and the advisors. that is their job but they are not being introduced in a combat role. it's a completely different scenario altogether and there has been no change to that policy. any of these additional advisers have the authority to call in airstrikes? >> that is not part of the mission set, no. wednesday night strikes

against the group, who was killed and are they still a threat? >> we still believe the group remains a threat. nobody has taken an eye off of that and i don't have an update you on the effectiveness specifically of the strikes. we do know they were successful in that they hit the targets we were aiming at. not to include some facilities as well as a vehicle. we believe there were some casualties as a result of those strikes but i am not in a position to identify who they were or exactly how many there were. >> can you explain how the pentagon differentiates between cores on group -- korzan groups, al qaeda, and can you hit one without the other? >> that his identification card and we recognize that but the group we have been watching for offshoot, they are an

of al qaeda. it very violent and very capable. it's, but lethal. -- small, but lethal. how one member may associate himself and their loyalties fluctuate over time. what i can tell you is that the strikes we took are aimed at the group members. christina. statement earlier said the 1500 were going and in an offensive against isis and iraq and is that not in -- does that mean it won't start until the forces art trained up? >> you may have misinterpreted what i meant by that. what we're doing in the training and advising is in keeping with the offensive campaign that iraqi security

forces want to be able to continue to conduct. you will have to talk to the iraqis about what their campaign plan looks like, but they are going on offense now. this is designed to be able to help them continue to be able to do that and improve their capability on the battlefield. the timing of it is not tied to some camp lane -- campaign land that will begin at the end of training. we get the funds authorized from congress to do this, you will see both happening at the same time. training, advising, assisting, and fighting. >> does congress need to approve the4.5 six billion before troops start flowing there? >> yes. that means 200 or so

trainers will be at each site, if there's four to five? we're still working out the exact numbers, christina. i think it's fair to say that roughly each site will have a couple hundred or so, but i want to get pinned down on that number, because it still will fluctuate. do is my answer to spence, in terms of breaking it down, about 630 or so dedicated to advise and seaft assist.and i want to foot stompt will thereby contributions from both of theses to nations as well, primarily the training mission. see cooling numbers stepping up. we already have. >> justin asked you earlier the iraq government had to show a willingness to arm and work with the sunnies. and you said a willingness to do outreach.

has prime minister abadi said sunniese andto arm can you tell me specifically what these trainers will be doing? how will it be different from the training we saw in 2011? are we going back to basics or something more specific? >> on your first question, nancy, i don't know. i don't know if the prime specificallysaid if he's willing to arm them. demonstrated is his willingness to reach out to them. that there will likely be a role for sunni this training effort. we've got more work to do in that regard. to bet they're going trained to do, it's going to be helping them with command and control. i'm not talking about the advising. there's also an advising role for that too, but helping to

train them in command and in battlefield leadership, in tactical maneuver, in in in intelligence matters. i mean, it will be training as much across the board as we can. going to be focusing it on what the needs are too. until we get the brigades identified and in, there has to be a little flexibility. not every iraqi brigade is going to need the same thing as the one. but basically just trying to improve their battlefield competence. all things that you were training them on for upwards of a decade. saying that the prime minister's leadership led to a down to the -- a degrading down to the most basic level? >> that's exactly what i'm saying. >> and a few hundred troops can that?

>> your question means that you doubt the veracity of what we're do here. >> i'm just asking this. >> you were basically saying you don't think it's enough. believe that for the numbers we're talking about training, at the request -- and this is of their iraqi government -- this is what they've asked us to do, and the expressed.ave the requirement is coming from them, not from us. based on that requirement, we that this is the appropriate number of troops to devote to the mission, absolutely. didn't believe that this was the right number, we wouldn't have submitted it. up on herust follow question? >> sure. >> are they paying for it? if is the u.s. paying for it they requested it? outset.d this at the contingent on this authorization, there needs to be a commitment from iraq to pay a portion of the funds to support the training and the advising and the assisting. well, there will be an

expectation that coalition members also fund. we're looking for coalition members, not just to send trainers and expertise but also to help fund. and i think i answered that before. there will be a component of demandst requires and iraqi funds dedicated to it. so it won't all be u.s.-funded. back there. andrew? >> did you say that there might the sunni tribes to train in these u.s.-run training facilities? are you describing a scenario where, and did the president where u.s. situation service members would be training regular sunni units? i said was we're going to look at that. there very may well be a role in thisi tribes process. we're still working our way andrew.that, we recognize, and so does the prime minister, that outreach to the sunni tribes and their in the process is key. we're still working our way through what that would look like. the back there, bill?

do youmany iraqis estimate will come through this training? >> well, as i said, it's originally going to be set up iraqi security force three peshmerga brigades. brigades havese not yet been identified. so i can't give you an exact number right now. part of the national guard effort? >> not initially. that said, we do envision that this process could be used to help with the training and development of the national guard program. that's not the plan or that is not the intent at the outset, there could be a role for that later on. >> lastly, will these trainers out with these forces after they're trained? >> no. >> the coalition trainers, will they -- >> i can't speak for other nations. then only speak for united states. there's no intent to fut the trainers out in the field with to put the -- trainers out in the field as

these units once they're trained. no reintroduction of u.s. troops in a combat role in iraq. >> doesn't this essentially increase the risk to u.s. forces spread in so many locations? >> no mission we take is dave.ree, you know that. that's why i talked about the enablers that will go along with these trainers and advisors. in fact, the majority of the inber of troops that will be the advise and assist mission will actually not be advisors. protectione force personnel as well as command and control, logistics. there's risk, of course there is. that we do doesn't entail risk but we try to mitigate the best we can. to stress that these trainers will be operating at sites that we are surveying right now, protection will be foremost on the general's mind as those sites are selected. and if there's any enhancements that need to be made, it will be done with that very much in

mind. >> these sites will be fixed locations? >> absolutely. that's right. yes, ma'am? questions. of but first off, i was hoping you would comment on reports that on a briefing with lieutenant general boggen, he said that the canadian government had committed to buying, at least verbally, that the u.s.nd government was just waiting for a letter of intent by mid-november? on that. no comment dialogues there been on the f35's between the u.s. and canadian government? to internalpeak deliberations that we may or may not have with foreign governments. you to thent government of canadian to speak to whatever their procurement needs and intenses are. hand, hasthe topic at canadian been among those talking about a potential increase? >> i could speak for denmark

today, just because we met with today and secured their permission for me to talk about they were willing to make. but i wouldn't speak for other countries. canada is involved here. they've been helping on the humanitarian side. air strikesflying over iraq. very capable effective military. we're glad to have them on board. for this particular mission set, i would again let the canadian government speak for itself. on your part, and ask out to all coalition partners? >> we have approached many cooling partners, especially know have skills in this kind of training. and we have tried to solicit their interest in it. said allately, as we along, this has got to be something that each country has to agree to do on their own or on their own. and those are their decisions to make. trying to force people

into it or anything like that. but we certainly are encouraging members that we know have skills and the capabilities to contribute to do so. maggie ql. >> you said that coalition sending several hundred additional trainers to iraq. but that number didn't really to me.nse are you saying 700-plus? said., that's what i >> and have they agreed on a cap much and no more? >> not that i'm aware of. but, again, you have to speak to aboutindividual nation what they're willing to contribute or what they're not willing to contribute. >> and you said there's going to 12 brigades for the pentagon. the -- >> 12 total. outset,d at the coalition members will be assisting us in this training. 12 total. with allal and that's of the coalition members, no more? >> that's right. britain isise that training some troop out there randomly in arbil? the can only speak for

united states military, maggie. what i can tell you is this is a very much a is coalition mission. so 12 brigades is the plan at several sites. and frankly, back to what i said before, this is what the of iraq requested, not a requirement we laid on them. us, what they've laid on for 12. 12 total. and the trainers that will be training those 12 brigades will not just be american trainers. they will be international trainers, trainers from coalition members. as i said, denmark has agreed to other nations have as well. >> sorry. just to push the point a little the british defense chief said earlier this week that they were going to be sending advisors to arbil. i'm trying to figure out if that brigades?he whole 12 >> i'm not going to speak for every individual nation. they have to speak for themselves and what they're willing to contribute. the british have been terrific effort,hroughout this in so many different ways.

but i'll let them speak for what be.r role will i think i -- i don't think i can do it any -- take it any farther than that. >> back on the iraqi funding of the initiative. all to say at this juncture that the u.s. expects the bulk ofo pay the expense of this additional training, especially given the the u.s. hashat been kind of throwing at the iraqi -- >> the expectation is -- in fact the requirement will be that the iraqi government contributes funding to this effort. i do not think i would as the bulk.it the pakistani army arbil andeled to offered to train forces in pakistan. u.s. is training in a big way, do you think this is a coming from

pakistan? >> i think that's something that to afghan government needs speak to, the degree to which they find that helpful. all along pakistan ask a key partner -- is a key in the region. i wouldn't comment here from the pentagon on that proposal. in fact, i have not seen reports of that proposal. ifi'm saying this because pakistan trains afghan forces, lessen the burden of the training on the afghan forces. >> the mission is going to in afghanistan at the end of the year, and it will be more of a train, advise and assist under nato auspices. we are working closely with our sourcing forn the that. we know, for the united states, it begins at about 9800 troops year.next and then that will taper off the time, as the, you know, training concludes. but there will still need to be a significant international

commitment to the training and advising of afghan national security forces, post-2014. many nations involved in that effort, auspices.through nato i would not speculate about the role that pakistan might play. the pakistanifor government to talk to. >> the pakistan army chief is to d.c., i think next week or later this month. do you know what he will talk pentagon about? ask thenk you should pakistani government what he'd say. you should talk to the pakistani leadership about what their expectations are for the trip. this wasd told david going to take a couple months to set up this easy training sites, then six months of training about. it's been about a couple of months since we started the syrian training. we there, and will this affect the syrian training? are there going to be troops going in to advise and assist

iraqis that had been designated syrians?the >> there's no connection to this equipm and the train and program, absolutely no connection. completely separate. you said it's been a couple of months since it started. it hasn't started yet. to takeid it's going about three to five months in vetting process squared away. and that's not done yet. dempsey himself said the vetting process hasn't even begun yet. there's no connection between two. >> but it's been two months since we announced it. do we have the sites yet? we keep getting little bits of information. the saudis have offered sites. and we have a team there working the saudis on exactly where those sites are. and their suitability. theturks as well, in just last couple of weeks, have

agreed they would contribute to a syrianing of opposition and fighters. and i don't believe exactly where they would do that. the turkish government would have to announce that. but there have been at least two come forwardhave and said they'd be willing to host this training, all very helpful. have teams talking to both governments to try to nail down the particulars on that. what we've said from the very that the long pole in the tent was going to be the recruiting and vetting process, hadn't beguness yet. >> can i ask a quick follow-up about russia? is ukrainian government saying that russia has sent dozens of tanks into eastern ukraine. we been able to confirm that, seen any evidence that's happening and -- >> no. any independent operational reporting that would be able to confirm that report, formations have crossed the border. what we do see is a continued significantly battaliond ready

tackle groups right across that border, and they're close. very capable. and they're doing nothing to the tension in the region. so not helpful. notontinue to say that it's been helpful. but i have no independent operational reporting that tells crossed the border. >> can you step back one second here? approve thedoesn't $5.6 billion package sent today january or february, nothing goes. >> we need the support of congress to authorize the yes.st, >> right. is it you're going in a resolution now until december 12. you can't use the continuing resolution to fund this? of a supplemental request? and do you think if it drags out, just so members of the new ones and the old ones -- they need to get this thing passed before any over there, any of

these 1500? >> we need the authorization and with iting that comes in order to be able to conduct the secretaryand obviously is urging congress to pass it as soon as possible. >> okay. one other one. you talked about the risk to u.s. troops. tell the american people -- or be -- forxpect the potential that the troops, in athough they're not combat role, could be killed or wounded? ofwe've already had a couple military deaths associated with this conflict. again, nothing we do is without risk. best we can to mitigate it. the safety and security of our are a top priority to us. but part of being in the military means being able to some risk in what you're doing. i don't want to speculate here will not haver casualties. we're going to do everything we can to try to minimize that occurrence, no question about that. >> just to sort of follow up on that, can you elaborate a little

bit on the parameters that will selection of these sites? the scene of a good deal of violence. sort of curious what threat environment will play in the selection of these sites, there? u.s. forces >> several factors that are going in here. obviously we're mindful of the situation there. do siteo when you survey, you look at geography, and the advise and assist missions, this is a changing geography. we are going to now try to put advising teams in what we would consider expeditionary geography, which is where iraqi security forces are taking the fight to the enemy. existsrastructure that at the sites are going to matter. i mean, a lot of what your -- ability to actually conduct

training and to assure a good through-put of trainees is going to be dependent on the actual suitability. one of the things that we'll at in some of these sites accommodatety to aircraft and what kind of aircraft. there's a lot that's going to go into this. we're just now starting this process. i don't have -- again, i don't any more detail on exactly where these are going to be. again, willorces, be at brigade level? they won't be going out into the -- >> the advisors, yes. at the same level that they are right now, brigade and division, at that.tay the training mission -- that's a separate one. the actual hands-on training for iraqi brigades, but they will be fixed training site, again for which we have taken suitable force protection measures. >> just one more question.

the story we watched all over world about the -- [inaudible] shooting of bin laden, what's the reaction to that? >> well, our reaction is -- there's anl, expectation when you join the elite group of individuals, and elite, the best of the an amazinglyy do dangerous and complex job and they've done it very well for the last 13 years. we all have enormous respect for and what they've done for the united states. there's an expectation inside community, a code that they ascribe to, that they will not recognition for what they seekd that they will not financial gain from what they do. and i can't speak to the

motivation of the individuals that have either conducted interviews or chronicled their accomplishments in books. but it's fair to say that it doesn't com comport with that c. the other concern that we have sharing of classified information. it needs tohey do be close so they don't endanger so they don'tons, make it harder for the the front lines orront dangerous for them to do that job. concerned when anybody in uniform has access to

sensitive or classified information, tactics, procedures, and then when they're no longer in uniform, decides to share that information publicly. a deep concern to us. and it should be. it should be a concern to the american people. takes away our pride and esteem for the job that those individuals continue to do. but there's an obligation that with it, an obligation not to be candid about what they do. your question?r >> are you -- >> i'm not going to speculate may or may note take. question] >> i just said we're not going to talk about -- we don't talk information ord sensitive information. so there's no way that i'm going to answer specific questions the raid that ended up killing osama bin laden. is he's dead.

he's gone and i think that's enough. man who isthe hefirming to the press that was the shooter, was he a seal? as a u.s. official -- >> no, i cannot. i cannot. because part of sensitive operations entails the identification of units and that participate in them, and i am simply not going to go there. absolutely not. louie? last question. >> very brief. you're going to train 12 brigades. how many do you intend to advise deployment?ith this that's the first question. >> that's all -- that kind of detail is still being worked out. have a good number for you on the advising mission. important about is the terrain.

they're going to be in more geography but i don't have a detailed number of exactly what brigade or division. not just rigs gaidz. gaidz -- not just brigades. think it fluctuates based on where you are, in baghdad a right now. it's a mixed picture. and they don't just get permanently assigned to one unit. they move around. here,t before we came in senior administration official, on a conference call, spoke outreach to the sunni tribes and talked about a train andffort to equip, to organize and equip, as tribesmen.00 sunni is that an american planning effort or is that an iraqi effort? >> i think it's both. i mean, i think this is we're -- again, to justin's question, i think we're working our way through governmenthe iraqi

right now. >> so the u.s. could be planning to train? speculate onet to way or the other right now. but this is something that the prime minister has made a priority. him in that either. effort. encouraging maliki to do outreach. support those efforts. the details of how that would we're just not ready to have a discussion about that right now. thanks, everybody! have a good weekend! [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> and nbc news is reporting on the addition of troops in iraq. all 1500 are deployed, i would almost double the american presence there. mission to help train, advise and assist local forces isiseir fight against militants, president obama also asking congress for $5 billion the fight against isis. and tonight over on our companion network, c-span 2, we'll look at book tv and prime

time. the book no good men among the living, about the war in afghanistan through the lives of three afghanis. and the new book, the innovators, about programmers entrepreneurs who created the personal computer and the 8ternet, all beginning at p.m. eastern on c-span 2. tomorrow morning, on washington talk about campaign spending and the impact it had on the outcome of the 2014 elections. then the brookings institution toks at four ballot measures legalize marijuana. and the american academy of physicians assistants discussions the role they play in the u.s. health care system and their role in the shortage the coming years, plus your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets, all live tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. eastern on washington journal on c-span. >> this weekend on the c-span

networks, tonight at 8 eastern more reaction to the midterm elections. on saturday night at 8, a debate of the internet. q&a,unday evening at 8 on the latest book death of a king. 2, tonight at 8 on c-span college professor and author on german-occupied paris in world war ii. 10:00,day night at edward wilson on what makes us human and different to other species. tonight at 8:00, on american history tv, on c-span 3, medal recipients reflect on their service. and saturday at 8:00, on lectures in history, the social prejudice immigrants faced during the 1800's. and the 21st anniversary of the

fall of the berlin wall. find our television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. comments@cspan.org. or spen send us a tweet at hashg #comments. >> yesterday, the sixth circuit court of appeals upheld bans on sairnlsame-sex marriage, settina review by the supreme court. next, one of the oral arguments covered by yesterday's ruling. from august.case, >> good afternoon. on behalf of the people of the state of michigan. may it please the court. justice kennedy explained just a ago, it is a fundamental premise of our democratic system that the people can be trusted to decide

even divisive issues on decent and rational rounds. and that's what this case is about. it's about who gets to decide definition of marriage is, not what that definition must be, and who gets to decide on two different levels. the judicial hierarchy. districtt whether a court can disregard a directly the u.s.holding by supreme court, namely baker versus nelson. it'she bigger picture, about whether federal rights, if there's going to be a creation federal constitutional right, if that should be done by the amendment process or by the processn the due doctrine. there's common ground in this case that the u.s. constitution directly address same-sex marriage, which is a return to the question of due process. test is whether or not the right that's being deeplyd is objectively, rooted in this nation's history tradition.

and same-sex marriage does not that necessary historical deep root. >> what do you do act the fact one could have said the same thing about lawrence? towell, with respect lawrence, the lawrence court directly address the analysis. but since then, this court has applied the analysis and recognized it's a continuing way that you're supposed to analyze due process, both in the u.s. citizens association case repeatedly, since lawrence, this court has continued to that it and has recognized that sets out the relevant standard. overridedoesn't gluksburg or reverse all of the by notefore it simply mentioning it. so this court is still bound by an. >> what about baker? early on.ned that

it's not a very long opinion. you'd acknowledge. a lot has happened since then. think you'd also acknowledge that. how do we deal with it? >> well, this court, i think, is bound by it. the length of it doesn't matter, because the question is a hierarchy. the united states supreme court has repeatedly said that summary decisions that it makes are courts.on the lower this court has reiterated that, , it specifically are stillsummaries binding unless reversed by the u.s. supreme court. >> there's a little more give it than that. developments that -- the doctrine grown out of other supreme court cases. we're clearly dealing with

doctrinal developments in this area of the law, are we not? >> well, two answers. all, the doctrinal developments language that's hicks also says the courts are supposed to follow court's decisions until it overrules them. that, int to augustiniversus rodriguez -- ifn up to the it's still supreme court to override it. doctrinalgree on the dock tinl to.lopment point both questions were presented in baker versus nelson, whether was a due process right and whether there was -- >> you don't think lawrence overruling a case that came out thata few years before indicates a doctrinal development? >> i think that shows a

doctrinal development in the area of the right to privacy, but i don't know that that necessarily shows a doctrinal development in the area of the right to marry, which is a something.gnition of it's not a right to privacy. i think lawrence was decided on substantive due process ground so it doesn't have anything to say about the to marry.l right >> what about the loving case suggests that the policy and the masination were not deeply rooted in our american society? >> that case was primarily about the fact that there was racial discrimination, in violation of equal protection clause, which the supreme court in recognized. the primary component of the --h >> but it was, was it not, the law across a huge swath of

southern states at the time -- i the, that was a vote by againstf many states the possibility of interracial marriage. language in loving says the right to choose whom to is a fundamental right. >> well, to the extent that attempt to analogize loving to the question of the marriage, the supreme court rejected that analogy in the baker case. so -- >> so really what you want us to 11-word opinion efforts tout all the all the opinions that have come marriageving same-sex in the last ten years? years? >> the first circuit recognized that -- there have been other have been recognized

they've been downed by daric. baker. simple question of judicial hierarchy. if the supreme court wanted to the freedom to choose whom to marry was not limited to the opposite sex, then in baker, they had the opportunity to do that. and they didn't do that. directlytion was presented to them. that shows there's a difference does not go, which to the heart of what marriage is -- have toou would concede, the loving decision against what the electorate wanted in much of the south when it was announced? not.think it did when you talk about the passedate wanted, they the -- >> you might be interested in knowing that as recently as 1978, the tennessee constitution provided, quote, the intermarriage of white persons negroes and mulattos were persons of mixed glad descended

from a negro to the third generation inclusive or their as man and wife in this state is prohibited. supportslature shall this section by appropriate legislation. tennesseef 1978, the electorate was asked to repeal that provision in the constitution. and they did so, but they did so of only 8,000 votes out of almost half a million. think these points show that the people did choose to end racial discrimination, and then did also choose later to end racial but that just, shows that the people can make these unrational decisions. doesn't mean that the history and tradition of this court, here,espect to the issue which is same-sex marriage -- i think if you look at windsor, it is very instructive on the historical analysis. section 3 of windsor talks about history and tradition of

marriage and talks about the history and tradition of same-sex marriage. respect to same-sex marriage, it recognizes that it was only until recent years when was even deemed possible. >> well, that's true. that's true. but if we take this case to be the right to marry and not the right to marry a person of sex, isn't what's going to happen around the country what islear and happening pretty clear? that what you're saying is there are trends where the people are passing laws to change the law -- >> no, no. that's not what i'm saying. i'm saying, what is the issue? is the issue the right to marry here, or are we dealing withing a right to marry, or are we like --with something oh, what were those cases? the right of inmates to marry, of deadbeat dads to marry? i mean, i think it was judas kay rightsnd fundamental are -- that said fundamental rights are fundamental rights. simple as that. you're looking at whether

there's deep historical roots within the definition of only people paying their child support payments can marry, that's quite different saying there's a deep historical root that only people marry.opposite sex can those cases involved limitations that were not inherent to what theiage had been throughout centuries. the u.s. supreme court recognized this when it was -- talking about history. marriage between a man and a woman has been recognized as fundamental. it is fundamental to the definition of the term, and said definitionue to the of the term, its role and function, throughout the history of civilization. >> what do we do about a reality aboutarriage is always norms andth social maybe it was originally about channeling procreative

possibilities? definitions are more about love, affection and committed. when you think of it that way, seem hard to justify. everything you're talking about so far is not being a fundamental right. answer the question that, really, was the holding in all four of these cases, that it even survive rational basis. what do you do about the difficulty of, if you think about marriage just through that affection, commitment, it does start to get a little difficult to see the one group between the eligible and the other group not. >> i agree, when you focus on fundamental rights, history is the focus. when you are using the protection analysis, the question is -- i guess the preliminary starting question the rational base inquiry, is why is the state interested in emotional connections between people? in our brief.his

the state doesn't have an interest in regulating regulating friendships. it doesn't regulate how long the friendship has to exist. changes, and the reason the state has an interest in marriage, is because marriage to children and to the bringing of new children into society, and how is society sure that they are cared for? so it's rational for the state in promotingterest marriage so it will be more child will have both a mother and a father and will have the benefits of having and a father. in the trial below, experts on the plaintiff's side conceded differences between mothering and fathering, and that there are different benefits from each one. rational basis, though, of excluding everybody else? it doesn't cut down on the procreation of children, with the procreation of children, just because you've the same sexe of

marrying. and in some of those marriages, at least one of the partners is to procreate. >> i have three marriage responses to that. outfirst, i have to point that under the rational basis standard of review, that's question.he outrobinson case points that the question for rational basis for view is whether the being putrest forward, if it's being advanced group,uding a first including a second group that does not advance that interest is not irrational, does not benefits. that case again was about veterans benefits. state interesthe asserted, was having people fight in the armed services and benefits were extended to benefits to encourage people to join the military. the question was, are conscientious objectors entitled benefits? it would not advance the state's interest in making it more people that fight

in the nation's services. >> so you would say that what trying to do with confining marriage to opposite is to encourage procreation? >> i think that is one of the state's interests, is making sure that procreation for one committedlong-term relationships between opposite-sex couples where procreation -- >> isn't that a little hypocritical then to allow people who can't procreate but fromnt same-sex partners marrying? >> not at all, because the question of whether the state would have the ability to say to an opposite-sex couple, when they're applying for their marriage license, are you going procreate? that -- you know, the definition of marriage is always recognized opposite-sex couples have the right to marry. so that would be a limitation on the fundamental right to marry. even get to ask the question. >> they acknowledged that there important benefits to the state beyond procreation,

i should think. benefits attendant and the benefits and responsibilities to marriage seem to the question we're addressing here, whether or not that matter to a state says, as virginia did, we have no interest in licensing adult love. but there are these benefits and beponsibilities that would taxes,nt to the state, somewhat consistency among the members of the -- married members, folks in marriages the state all would have the same responsibilities, those sort of things. think there would be other benefits from people -- >> beyond procreation. together. there may be multiple state hereests but the question

is whether it's at least a rational state interest to make it more likely that every child would have a mother and a father. or whether it's a rational interest to try to recognize a biological reality, opposite-sex couples can have pregnancies whereas can't.x couples so extending marriage to couples doesn't -- there are other benefits for marriage but the fact that that doesn't undermine that it's rational for the state to be promoting these benefits. >> as everyone acknowledges, applied aes have not pure rational basis review. that from windsor, for example. right? difference ina rational basis review. me.ell, windsor -- excuse romar starts out by starting out

about -- it talks about whether or not there's a desire to harm. windsor does the same thing requiring amar, desire to harm in order to set aside the rational basis. be able to tell that, if there was no rational basis. but here there are. instead, the presumption should be the one i started out with, voters are decent and rational. if there is a plausible -- i mean, that's what the rational basis test is. if there's a conceivable basis, then that's a reason to uphold the law. and this is a democracy promoting rule. it allows the people to make decisions. remember, we're -- this is something that the people can decide to change tomorrow by amending the federal constitution. it's not that the court is the only recourse for creating a new law. fact, the court shouldn't be creating new rights. ie third rational basis haven't brought up yet is the fact that there is uncertainty in this area. thingimply such a new

that it's too early to tell. the plaintiff's experts conceded that trying to study children that were raised in same-sex a needle in ais haystack population. they also said there hasn't been a single comprehensive study done of children actually raised marriage.sex so a rational person might think, even somebody who would the future, a rational person might think it's too early to tell. least rational to wait and see. so there's a number of different basis.l talking about rational basis review. intermediate scrutiny, through one path or the other, would you concede the problem? a >> no, yes, your honor. no, your honor. if it was scrutiny under the protection clause, taking

into account the precedents, if those weren't there, under intermediate scrutiny, differences between men and women can make a difference. in one case about the difference whoeen mothers and fathers, had children that were born outside the united states, the upheld that court it treated men and women men tontly and required prove that they were the father, to a higher level than it required women to prove. i guess the other question is, equal protection clause still, this is simply an impact case. is facially neutral and the law also has no intent to harm. the case specifically recognized that it wasn't possible to say animus onan intent or the part of michigan voters. that means the only thing left is the impact. if -- neutral? it facially

including one group but not another? defining marriage between a man and a woman -- gender-wise,eutral i agree with that. but i don't understand why it's as betweenutral people of one sexual orientation and another. >> well, i think the answer be that it doesn't prohibit them from marrying either. it's facially neutral. there's no evidence this was exclude them. the evidence is that it was simply continuing the definition that has been throughout all of michigan's history. only reason -- that's the answer. >> so can i ask you -- you the sixth circuit precedents. i assume you're talking about davis? >> davis and scarborough, yes, yes, your honor. >> well, the problems with the

equality foundation, as i read supremeelied upon the court's bowers decision, reversed in lawrence. so i wonder -- equalityonor, the foundation opinion mentions bowers only when it's talking history.or then it's based on romer. it was remanded in light of romer. so it doesn't rely on bowers. the analysis doesn't talk about bowers. again, this court, even after lawrence, has continued to apply the same -- >> well, i have to tell you, we are sometimes perfectly capable of blindly applying cases. i'm not sure i would be willing to say that we did in davis. but that has happened. >> so, you know, if you were to lose under either -- one there's theis

same-sex marriage, another possibility is there's makesened review, which life very difficult for justifying the law. are there practical implementation problems? i mean, you know, with brown, onlyould say the implementation problem was resistance, but it was a pretty easy rule to implement, right? i guess what i'm interested in, from the state's this -- theres may be controversy. there may be resistance. difficult as a matter of implementation to implement this new rule? >> so if, in other words, the outcome were that same-sex marriages were constitutionally protected, would it be hard for states? >> yes. what problems result? >> well, i guess i think, if about whating possible harms might come from changing the definition of marriage -- >> implementation problems. is it difficult to adjust state marriage, divorce,

anything else, or is it really pretty simple? include this new group within the -- >> it would have widespread impacts. quite sure exactly how all of those would play out. >> what would they be? that's the question. what would they be? >> well, as far as changing how about michigan's laws marriage or -- >> well -- >> i think, in the big picture, one of the things that could if it were changed, and this is something that there would be no institution in that would say it's important to have both a mother and a father, so in terms of societal impact, i think there might be harm, which is to say that there would be nothing to important for fathers to be there and mothers to be there, and mothers and different things to the table. >> do you honestly think that's what has happened in states same-sex marriage is now valid? >> too early to tell. it's only been ten years since passed it.tate >> but we're now to something jurisdictionsthe

in the country. and probably more than that, in of -- maybe more than that, in terms of population as whole. and it doesn't look like the sky has fallen in. thatthink the point is it's too early to tell when you're changing such an society,al bedrock in just ten years. that's not even a single generation of children. it could beee how possible to assess the outcome children. >> i thought there was a lot of evidence offered in the trial in that indicated in fact that the outcome on children was reasonably benign given what they know at this point. and i know you're going to i see it coming -- it's too early to tell. [laughter] going to say that. i think that's a valid point, your honor. >> but then the people who tried side of then your all thesepresent

terrible impacts that they said this would have, i mean, there professor,e texas where he had a disclaimer on the university of texas, website, don't believe anything this man says. >> your honor, the fact that one particular social scientist -- i think the picture, the big picture, is it's simply too early to tell. this is something rash thal people could -- rational people agree with, that rational people could recognize. it's too early for social scientists or philosophers to be able to tell. mr. lindstrom, is oft it disparages the votes citizens of michigan, is that -- i should think that's -- >> i definitely think that weighs into the consideration very heavily, to say that, for this is, under rational basis review, to say that michigan's voters didn't have among them a single rational basis. a's not possible to have

person of good will to disagree -- from the two people from ohio, we might be able to accept that argument. >> fair enough. areink the numbers in ohio also quite -- may be more about it.to talking >> my red light is on. >> the dates of the last time the people in michigan voted yearsomething like ten ago? >> it was 2004, that's correct, your honor. reason that the people could change their mind in the future. it's not a reason to say it's unconstitutional. >> okay. you'll get your full rebuttal time. thank you. we'll hear from ms. stanyar. >> may it please the court. of thestanyar on behalf april deboer family. for 50 years, the supreme court the freedomed that

of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life are by duees protected process. have deboer and jane rows a constitutional right to share a life, to marry, to form a family, to raise their children. in this case that no matter what standard of scrutiny matter whates, no doctrine the court applies, the state can't prevail here. the michigan marriage amendment is unconstitutional. a starting disagreement between hasparties, as the court already observed, is the articulation of the right itself. is it the right to marry, or is right what the state is calling same-sex marriage? i what about -- i mean, realize -- you know, before windsor, the first and second binding.aid baker is post-windsor, there's no recognizing that. but i have to say, i really find that a very serious issue. and i -- the thing that's going oddly enough we treat

these summary reversals or binding, no less than a fully written opinion. everyone understands that's true. there's this language that judge doctrinalinted out, developments. that's mainly from a '75 case, hicks. what hicks means, because it then later says, you know, follow this until we tell otherwise. then, in american express and augustini, the court is pretty clear about saying even when you see one line of cases crumbling, you, the lower infer, aren't allowed to anticipatorily overrule this other line of cases. so as a matter of hierarchy, aren't we stuck with baker? >> i don't believe so. this was a one-line summary affirmance order. unless therecourt

are doctrinal developments that are substantive. these constitute that doctrinal development. case --stini >> when you say doctrinal development, is it fair to meanhrase that to reasoning that's inconsistent with other lines of precedent? isn't that what you mean by a doctrinal development? >> well, there's evolution of these concepts, evolution of, due process concepts, evolution of equal protection, in lawrence, and in -- i think the court -- >> that is increasingly inconsistent with baker? point, right? there's other cases that seem somewhat inconsistent with baker? >> it's totally inconsistent with baker. >> but isn't that augustini? >> augustini is distinguishable. was a full opinion had a written opinion, it had oral argument and a conclusion.

the distinguishing thing in that type of situation is that in a affirmance order, you don't know what the rational for the court is. it's an eleven-word order. what the rational is. you don't know what the court based its ruling on. and that's what is distinguishable about these types of rulings. and -- >> i think that's why summary affirmances aren't binding on the court, the supreme court. that's why they're very casual ignoring them. but i didn't think that rule applied to lower courts. second circuit, in league of women voters, explained that courts can be informed directly by an outright reversal earlier decision or they can be informed indirectly by doctrinal developments. so they held, or what we would say is that here the doctrinal way thatnts are the this court is informed, and therefore this court can make the call despite baker, and country has,n the

you know, ruled this way on baker. >> that wasn't true in the first and second circuit, for windsor. >> before windsor. windsor is doctrinal development, probably the most that we have. so it is the greatest, i would developmentinal case. romer cases, and alter their view of how to look at this. sixthn't alter the circuit's view? >> the second circuit's view before windsor. cases was windsor itself. >> i understand that. the court, in perry, me do it thiset way. the supreme court had that issue before it. a discussion on the record, with i believe justice talking about dock

doctrinal development. granted, they decided that case based upon standing, but be, you know, the court didn't think much about that. they didn't even mention baker, about it.n talk and the court allowed california's ban to be struck down. >> well, it would have been pretty strange for windsor to about baker, given that the companion case to windsor is hollingsworth and they decided there was a jurisdictional impediment to getting to the issue presented in today's case. >> i understand what the court is saying. this court can reach it doctrinalere has been development. >> i think i understand the argument. >> we are not asking to redefine relationship. we're only asking for an end to exclusion to same-sex couples to the right to marry. the rights focuses on itself. >> when you're talking about it requires right,

state licensing. that's what your clients want. >> yes. they want state licenses. >> a license to their relationship. correct, in the right to marry, yes. import there is something different than i thought you were talking about. you want them to recognize it to license it by the state's licensing. do.e the >> the central attribute of the marriage is the freedom to marry the person of your own choice. the state citeses glovesburg that the court must make a careful of the right asserted. loving versus virginia, turner and the list -- >> i mean, i just, that is 1967 decision so in 1968, say a gay caucasian man and a gay african-american man go to virginia to seek a license to marry. do you really think ng