the point is, what's a sincerely-held religious he belief? the individuals there were devout christians, and as they interpreted their religion, it was a violation, a sin, for them to participate in anyway in signing papers, even, to allow the provision of certain contraceptive devices, those that they believed had the effect of destroying a fertilized egg. >> right. >> and they were -- >> that sergeant exactly why the question of use of this term complicity is so interesting to me because it opens up a very broad, very attenuated, very remote connection between sincerely-held religious beliefs by this devout family through a trust, through a corporation, a for-profit corporation, to impact the choices and life decisions of 13,000 people. it is a truly unprecedented decision, if i could just quote for a moment. >> sure. >> what i suspect is familiar to you, the dissent of the chief judge in your circuit briscoe. she said this opinion was nothing short of a radical revision of first amendment law as well as the law of corporations, wholly unsu

they assail our beliefs. they decry our notion of justice.they proclaim the high ground of virtue and friend of people if not given their way. what will history show what we did with our moment of truth? did we stand and fight? or did we cut and run? ladies and gentlemen, this is my challenge to you. these are your marching orders. go forth to stand and fight. [applause] thank you so much. may god bless you and may god continue to bless these united states of america. [applause]

they do not make chases based on any core beliefs.t the risk of their very lives and their seat in the capitol building as need dictate in pursuing freedom, liberty or the need for unlimited scope of government, and day are certainly not prepared to be bold and aggressive in leading. to leave the safety of the m middmid middle -- i for one find no safe harbor or view on the middle ground seeking for others to acknowledge the virtue of my actions. you see, i like president reagan see things not only as left and right, but forward and backward, swimming sometimes against a powerful tide or simply treading water, fundamentally failing our duty to make any choice at all by voting present. ronald reagan said that for almost two centuries, we have proved man's capacity for self-government but today we are told we must choose between a left and a right or as others suggest, a third alternative, a kind of safe middle ground. reagan went on to say, i suggest to you that there is no left or right, only an up and a down up to the maximum of indi

there is the belief that the chinese has stolen key american trade secrets. is that true?ere has been a lot of concern about chinese cyber -- not military secrets but commercial technology. it's a big problem for american companies but even beyond that, but we are seeing here happening in china, the chance to upgrade here. to start developing robots, electric cars, microchips, this is a state led national agenda with a tremendous state resources behind it. money behind it. that is what we have to counteract. some of the ways of doing it are rather than throwing tariffs, one idea is to use an approach of what is called reciprocity. hey, if american companies cannot do something in china or they are restricted from doing business in some way or investing in some way, maybe we should match those restrictions on chinese companies doing business in america. i would not only start to curtail some of the predatory practices of chinese businesses but it would pressure the chinese to open their own market which is great for american businesses. it would help bring down that trade d

your religious beliefs have no protection from the state, is that correct? >> we have people of goodwill on all sides. we live in a pluralistic society. we try to figure out how we get along. what we are trying for its tolerance, respect, the dignity of all people to be able to carry out their lives in the way that they see fit. everyone struggles -- how to follow their faith but also interact with others. it is just really sad that the government has decided to put its thumb on the scale and say your beliefs, your way is wrong and we are going to punish yound with basically a lifetime crushing penalty. >> tucker: embedded by their mindless handmaiden presses that hate you for other reasons. when will we find out that outcome for this? >> it will take a number of months probably. whatever the ruling is, one side or the other will appeal and this will probably make its way all the way up to the supreme court. so people can follow this case, at firstliberty.org. >> tucker: you don't have to be a christian or even a religious person to have interest in the outc

assertion of religious belief. lobby case, in hobby about employees accessing contro employershen corporate might have a different personal employees might have different beliefs or they may not have religious belief. some are troubled in the hobby lobby case, it goes beyond what supreme court did in hobby robust there was a disc of ussionnonreligious affected by the case gorsuch'slook at go piece that went through this, privileges too much religious believer, again, not just perhaps his face, but all beliefs over those who are nonbelievers or might have affected by iefs that religious liberty. i am sure that will come up in hearing.te host: david, you are next, hello. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i believe that nancy pelosi said, trying to remember her if you breathe air, if you eat food, if you take medication, then this guy is a wonderful family many, gorsuch, wonderful for your family. umber of outrageous statements she made in the past, you got to patch it to find out what is in it. and other lik

really a basis for this belief? >> you're asking me whether i would, as a judge, decide that someone's sincerely held religious belief is wrong? >> well, based on scientific evidence or some other factual evidence. >> so that i, as a judge -- i just want to make sure i understand the question. that i would say that the belief is scientifically invalid and therefore not protected by the statute? is that the question? >> well, therefore could not be a sincerely held belief. >> oh. sometimes a court will hold that a belief is not sincerely held. that's true. that does happen. i've had a case involving just that scenario. and it was -- it involved a group of drug districters who claimed they worshipped marijuana. >> i was here when you responded to that and, you know, i hate to be rude, but i'm down to less than 12 minutes so if you don't mind, sir, i'd like to go on to another area. in 1942, an ordinary american koom an extraordinary stand. he boldly opposed the forced internment of japanese americans during world war

what's a sincerely held religious belief? the individuals there were devout christians and as they interpreted their religion, it was a violation, a sin, for them to participate in any way in signing papers even to allow the provision of certain contra septive devices, those that they believed had the effects of destroying a fertilized egg. >> right. excuse me, judge. that's exactly why the question of your use of this term complicity is so interesting to me. it opens up very remote connection between sincerely held religious beliefs by this devout family through a trust, through a corporation of for profit corporation to impact the choices and life decisions of 13,000 people. it's a truly unprecedented decision, if i could just quote for a moment what i suspect is familiar to you, the dissent of the chief judge in your circuit. this opinion was nothing short of a radical revision of first amendment law as well as the law of corporations, holy unsupported by the language of free exercise clause or the streak's free exercise j

the 20th century had some horrible, some terrible things were done to people, but it is my firm belieft the establishment of the state of israel is the greatest political achievement of the 20th century. this great beacon. this great beacon. [ applause ] today we are called upon to sustain and advance this achievement in the 21st century and to fulfill the vision of a just and lasting peace. in recent years, our nations have witnessed new threats, new barbarism and sfis cation from those who mean to do us harm. we must be relentless in our fight against terrorists, in the united states, in israel, wherever the threat exists. remember, the goal of terrorists is to terrorize, to instill fear. we must not let that fear destroy our nation's character. as we protect the american people, we must also protect and defend our constitution. that is our oath of office. [ applause ] we come together in the aftermath of an election that has left our country divided. but our democracy is strong, and fahd god is always with us. our faith tells us that we have not done enough to rid our nation of the

the second question is i am under the belief that medicaid and medicare had standard amounts they pay for items.rnment w did raise prices or to ask consumers to pay the extra cost? >> speaker wright and i was before him but he has spokenen many times by his vision. he would describe as fiscally response of bulbs with entitlements that there is a day capped amount per person paid and he would like to see premium assistance and individuals will pay the rest. the ugly would have had it over several alterations to give as the acting director and is also holon twitter thinks for joining us from minneapolis . >> anyone working at any hedge fund involved with short-term trading all of those people wanted to this the common term in the industry. this day white eggs and the gravestone and blackett clearly inside information. . >> the two central characters at the heart of the story are the former portfolio managers.

." >> a modest or in, but they'll -- modest origin, but they'll have belief.s essential to it. in this world when there's so much money, hollywood, belief is really priceless, you know. you can't buy it. you can't manufacture it. you've got to feel it. and when you make films like "moonlight" or "slum dog millionaire," you have that belief. it's what sustains you. >> speaking of "moonlight," we had naomie harris on a few weeks back. she sat in this chair and had something to say about you and the role you played in her career. she, of course was nominated for "moonlight." i want you to see this. play this clip of naomi on our show. >> i love danny boyle. i really do. i credit him -- he is the person -- when you're starting your career, you always need that one person who's going to take a risk on you. and i didn't have many credits. you know, i'd been at university, been at drama schools. i hadn't been working for a long time. and you know, he gave me the -- the co-leads in this big movie of his. and he always championed me and believed in me. he did that then

denigrated, downsized to the corporate religious belief, whatever that is. did you stop and think when you were doing, making this decision about the impact it would have on the thousands and thousands if not millions of employees, if you left it up to the owner of the company to say as you told me, there is some kind of family planning i like and some i don't like. >> senator, i take every case that comes before me very seriously. i take the responsibility entrusted in me inthink if you and judges of the tenth circuit am i a serious and careful judge, i think you'll hearhat i am. i'm delighted to have an opportunity to talk toou about that decision. as you know, in rifra the reyinlg lus freedom restoration act congress was dissafed under the first amendment to maryland justice scalia said any neutral law of general applicability is fine. that's, doesn't offend the first amendment. so laws banning the use of peyote, native americans, tough luck, even though it's essential to their religious exercise, for example. this congress decided that that was insuffici

denigrated, downsized to the corporate religious belief, whatever that is. did you stop and think when you were making this decision about the impact it would have on the thousands and thousands if not millions of employees if you left it up to the owner of the company to say, as you told me, there is some kind of family planning i like and some i don't like? >> senator, i take every case that comes before me very seriously. i take therested in me in my cut position very grave. i think if you asked the lawyers and judges of the tenth circuit, am i a serious and careful judg judge? i think you will hear that i am. i'm delighted to have an opportunity to talk at about that decision. as you know, the religious freedom restoration act, congress was dissatisfied with the level of protection afforded by the supreme court under the first amendment to religious exercise. the court in a case called smith versus maryland written by justice scalia said any neutral law of general applicability is fine. that does not offend the first amendment, so laws banning the use of

hirono: and therefore could not be a sincerely held belief. judge gorsuch: sometimes a court will hold that it is not a sincerely held belief. i had a case involving that scenario and involved a group of drug distributors who claimed they worshipped marijuana. ms. hirono: i was here when you responded to that. i hate to be rude and i'm down to less than 12 minutes, so i would like to go on to another area. 1942, ordinary american took an ordinary stand who opposed the internment of japanese americans. after being convicted for failing to show up for relocation. took 39 years before a california judge overturned his conviction in another proceeding but the supreme court never ruled for him. list of ined the short the most regrettable decisions in the court's history and even though most american citizens of japanese ancestry, the court found that the internment program was acceptable because some unknown fraction of that danger. ed a risk of today, if the court were to assess special restrictions on seven izens of the countries, do you believe

he wanted to permit a for-profit corporation to impose its owners personal religious beliefs on more than 13000 employees who worked at the corporation and to limit their access to healthcare under insurance policies. d in funding for the corporation, judge gore sick barely knowledged that it burden thousands of employees and their constitutionally protected religious beliefs and choices.in judge gorsuch also has a troubling record with persons with disabilities and discrimination. there is quite a scene last request week when the supreme court, in the midst of a hearinj on judge gorsuch issued an unanimous ruling rejecting a standard that was created by judge gorsuch. and educa i'm sure that has never happened in history. the standard that he promoted in the case where he wrote the majority opinion we can g protections for students with ce disabilities under the individuals with disabilities education act. in 2008, he wrote that under the ide a, schools need only to provide an educational benefit to students with disabilities let us "merely more than d minimus". of his in this case,

fuel this is belief in merit and leads to ultra. so we know, however, that research shows that when systems become more and more exclusive it leads to greater inequality in terms of the outcome and more reliance on s.a.t. scores that we know are -- have racially biased kind of outcomes. and then needing to compensate even more with prop, you know, programs leak affirmative action which are on shaky legal ground. and i also i want to point out universities play a role, their status is also at stake again because the university is trying to climb those, that is it the is us hierarchy of, you know, the u.s. news and world record kind of ranking right, so -- there's this kind of policy feedback booth where -- they think about there are kind of talking about admissions in particular ways. and students kind of repeat that will and then they will go on and take those beliefs and ways that they think about race and merit and equity, opportunity into, you know, the jobs that world, labor market when they leave these universities. and i think

must say that these beliefs are so basic and fundamental that i think average americans really get it. they understand it. when they lose confidence in it that we are a nation of laws not men, that courts make a difference, and so on, things begin to crack. ladies and gentlemen, i am somewhat saddened that this is the first time i've made this speech to such a distinguished audience. as i stand in this building i cannot help but say there is the free press that if we undermine we do it at our own peril. let me say something -- [applause] someone like all of us have taken more than our fair share of hits by the press. i've been covered by the best in the business, and some of the worst. some of you press guys are lousy, just like senators are lousy, doctors are lousy, lawyers are lousy. it doesn't matter. we should never challenge the basic truth that an independent fundamentalss is a element of our functioning democracy. i know you hear a lot about thomas jefferson, how he argued with the press. he said if it were left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspa

>> i the beliefs -- i think personal beliefs and religious beliefs got in the way of objectivity when women are trying to access health care. >> what's your evidence for saying that? >> reading the hobby lobby case. >> the result? >> yes. >> professor meyer, how do you like vanderbilt? >> very much, senator. >> do you go to the basketball games? >> sometimes. we probably shouldn't talk about the first round of the ncaa tournament. thank you for bringing that up. >> you spent a year with judge gorsuch. >> di did, yes. >> you saw him when he was tired. >> i did. saw him when he was under pressure? >> i did. >> you probably saw him when you saw him more than his spouse that year. >> yes. >> he works hard? >> we works very hard. >> works you hard, too? >> yes, he did. >> you ever see him decide a case based purely on personal policy pref rens. >> i didn't ever see him bring his personal policy preferences into claim bers at all. ever. >> you ever see him walk in and say okay, mr. clark, don't show me the briefs here, we will look at those later. let's go do some research on who the partie

having a belief system. amazing to me how many fortune 500 ceos read the press, read "wall street journal," and respond to it instead of saying, here is what we believe in as a company. passionate entrepreneurs like elon musk or larry page or mark zuckerberg, they have a passion that far exceeds their sort of desire for short-term profit. and because of that, they make more wealth and more profit over the long haul. in fact, wealth is just a tool to give you freedom to do what you want to do. and many people -- especially people like trump -- get trapped into this cycle of making more that is not that interesting. and doing all of the deals. he thinks it is smart to avoid taxes. taxes. and that just blows my mind. i'm religious about my belief systems. so when i have a battle on the beach -- back to your question -- it is about property rights. and about a set of people who want to use coercion. in fact they told me they would like to embarrass me into giving up my rights. well, if you have a belief system,

ignoring the strong record, the funeral home owner stripped her of her child that with the belief it is illegal to be transgender. complying with title women ask fowomen maxseven the judge adopa regarding moral culpability which disregards harm to people. if this reasoning is adopted it will undermine our civil rights law allowing pervasive discrimination not only against the lgbtq community that nationwide. they are litigated and debated by groups that would reopen the law. they would be asked for cases such as those that couldases describe to turn away the youth in need.d.hool whether the city of houston employees may be stripped of their spousal benefits or mother is like marissa must be both listed on their daughter's birta certificate. we might not agree with every decision a justice may make but we believe the commitment to reaching impartial judgments based on facts fact, not a polil ideology or bias and they must agree lgbtq people have a fundamental right protected by the constitution and that we as individuals and communities are entitled to equal treatment under the law. w

a network of lawless set savages that have lavished women, children of all face and all beliefs. we'll work with our allies including our friends and allies in the muslim world to extinguish this vile and anime from our planet. [applause] i have also impose new sanctions

a belief that they can deliver.what worries me most, and i never thought i would have to or wants to make this speech, the almost drumbeat of denigration of the institutional structures that govern us is dangerous. when you delegitimize the courts you delegitimize the legislative body. it is corrosive. it makes it almost impossible to reach compromise. we are a diverse nation. we are a great nation. to work this democracy, to be able to function, requires consensus at the end of the day. without consensus we have chaos. it is not just joe biden saying this, it is our constitution here and we have to remind ourselves how important this document is. i'm not trying to be professor joe biden and talk constitutional law, i talking about the essence of what it is. we believe all men and women are created equal. we really do think there should be separation of powers without even knowing the doctrine of separation of powers. we know the court when it rules has the right to overrule congress or a president. it should be adh

it says that there if there's any sincerely held religious beli belief, earnestly held religious belief the government must meet strict scrutiny before it may regulate on that basis. strict scrutiny being the highest standard known in american law. >> the reason i ask these questions, there is a legitimate concern. i hear stories from my grandparents when signs used to say "no irish need apply" or "no catholic need apply." i'm sure senator feinstein could speak about those of her religion. now president trump promised a muslim ban he still has on his web site to this day that he's called for a total and complete shut down of muslims entering the united states and a republican congressman said the best thing the president can do for his muslim ban is to make sure he has gorsuch on the supreme court before the appeals get to that point. >> senator, a lot of people say a lot of silly things. my grandfather -- >> that's more than silly, that's a -- he wants -- this congressman wants you on the court so he can uphold the muslim ban. >> senator, he has no idea how i'd rule in that case and, s

scott: it's not their beliefs that are important. it's the beliefs of their con stibt went. i know many much their constituents want them to solve the problem. obamacare is failing. in order to start the tax cuts we so desperately need, you have to get this because you have to stiewlts money you save from obamacare to deal with the tax cut. i would argue they have to do their job. if they have a specific proper whrement bill, they need to knock on the president's door. i's all ears. and there is a second phase and a third phase with filing addition at pieces of legislation. i think it's a no-brainer to get the first phase through and sit down with the authority to sit down and address their other concerns. charles: i think what they are saying is they think they would be doing their constituents a disservice going with this plan because for many of them it's obama light. and there is going to be a defactor mandate if you drop coverage for 6 months and have a 30% penalty. and tax kret -- tax credits reay are subsidies. scott: speaker ryan made incredible concessions. but just

advocate for changes to the law or recommend a reinterpretation of the law based on any personal beliefs. the law is clear, no interrogation techniques outside the army field manual are allowed.finally, senator coates reassured me and the members of the committee that if confirmed, he will always present to the president 's cabinet, advisors and to those of us in congress the unvarnished facts as represented by the best judgments of the intelligence committee. whether or not that analysis is in agreement with the views of the president for us in congress or anyone else that might receive them. for these reasons, i support the movement and the 80 members of this congress supporting him. moving forward i believe he

this is not about what my understanding or my belief of the cbo's play the last time they do this, they were wildly off. >> white house was pushing back on the saturday firing of preet bharara, u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. >> this is standard operating procedure for a new administration around this time to ask for the resignation of the u.s. attorneys. we had a good chunk of them submitting their resignation letter. >> it's common practice for the

does your regious belief a you not to do that? that merel needs to be pushed on. >> right.e raising such important points, especially in the context of the debate over the muslim ban, which religions are we talking about or does this favor certain ones? that's one the constitution has barred. let me go, though, to tim, for a final word. what do you think is something people might not know about your old boss that you want them to know? >> i think this week everybody is going to see this is a man who does not bring his convictions into the courtroom, that this is somebody who takes very seriously the job of enforcing the laws as written. the super statute is not one that trumps constitutional protects, one that prevails over other statutes. and i think that's what judge gorsuch meant in that case. i think that this week we're really going to see what a fine man he is, and what a fine justice he'll make. >> tim, caroline, burt, thank you for joining me on this special. if the supreme court nomination can be compared to a super bowl, please consider this your pregame show. we

they kept saying oh, what you're belief really is is something different than what you say it is and somehow that's not affected for these reasons. again, judge gorsuch did not go that route. now, the question hobby lobby of course is whether the contraceptive mandate under obamacare approve contraceptive devices of employers who had religious objections to being complicit in contraception of some cases and in providing abortion devices and drugs on a case of some other employers. and many on the other side are trying to present judge gorsuch's vote here as though this is a direct statement of his view on abortion or contraception. no. he is enforcing the statute that congress by overwhelming numbers enacted and saying it means what it says exactly as he said in yellow bear the statute means exactly what it says, little sisters of the poor, in 2015, he joined a powerful dissent in that case from a vote from a renight of rehearing on en banc, a panel ruled that the so-called accommodation of letting non-profit os escape the burden of the mandate did not with the little sisters of the

denigrated, downsized to the corporate religious belief, whatever that is.nd think when you're making this decision about the impact it would have on the thousands and thousands if not millions of employees if you left it up to the owner of the company to say as he told me, there's some kind of family planning i like and some i don't like. >> senator, i take every case that comes before me very seriously. i take the responsibility entrusted to me in my current edition very grave. i think if you asked the lawyers and judges that the 10th circuit, and a serious and careful judge? i think you wiear that i am. i am delighted to have an opportunity to talk to you about that decision. as you know, the religious freedom restoration act, congress was dissatisfied with the level of protection afforded under the first amendment to religious exercise. the court in a case called smith versus maryland written by justice scalia said any natural law of general applicability is fine. that doesn't offend the first amendment. so laws banning the use of peyote, native american

these are very deeply ingrained beliefs. so you need major, major things to happen to shake investors out of those beliefs. and that's why so far, what we hear out of washington hasn't disturbed investors. that's why the fact that we had no content in president trump's speech last week, didn't disturb the markets. that's why a massive repricing of interest rate prospects didn't reprice the market. you need really major policy mistakes. >> how soon -- >> or major political developments. >> how soon do we need the major political developments, as you say, before the market just gets tired of waiting? >> so i would have thought it should have happened already. in fact after i listened to president trump's speech, i thought, great tone, really positive tone, but the markets will worry about the lack of content, the lack of details. and guess what, the market didn't. the market just embraced the tone and said, we can wait on the content. so this seems, so far, to be a very patient market and it has surprised me the degree to whic

i'm hopeful that maybe i'm too optimistic and naÏve here but it's an attitude and a belief i have.as i'm at this agency i want to reach out to those, hear from them, make informed decisions and do so with a commitment to progrowth, and proenvironment. again, we'll see. there is a number of individuals on both sides of the spectrum that have belief that don't want to have that discussion. will see. >> what's been interesting to me about that, is that industries seem more willing to compromise in the environmentalist. there's a lot of oil and gas companies that not only do what they're required to do but while go beyond their environmental regulations require. part of that is because they know if something goes wrong it'll cost them million dollars a day to be shut down and they don't want that but they do genuinely care about doing a good job in being good neighbors. are there ways to encourage industry groups to follow the way they've gone and go beyond what is literally required by the law and taking more a proactive stance that might assuage some of the environmentalist was mark.

let's start with the beliefers. >> the beliefers are the groups we identified, about a fifth of the countrythey are the base of the base for the president. they support him, they support him strongly and they are really defined by and as people process all of the news that came out in the last few weeks, they are defined by singular trust with him, you can see where they trust to get accurate information, they say it comes from him above all others. for example this is the group that says he was wiretapped. other groups are more skeptical this is a group that doesn't think they are, the legislation is nonpartisan and also see them trust him when it comes to congress and legislation or speaker of the house paul ryan and even over at the republican party as a whole. and this for me echoes a little bit of what we saw even last year in the primaries where donald trump was running against the establishment, the republican so-called establishment, and these supporters still got that. they still see him as the singular figure that can make washington work. >> dickerson: quickly, what are their tho

this belief has transformed the holy city of the oldest cities in the world into a vast crematori crematorium. there are 87 of these gats all along the banks. their fires burn continuingly. every gat cremates 100 bodies a day. they are cremated by an untouchable cast called the dome doms. so you were born here, right? >> oh yes, i was born here. i've grown up swimming across the river and coming back every day. >> is that right? >> this is how i've grown up. >> i understand that a lot of people come here at the end of their lives hoping to die. it's like a city of the dead in that sense. >> that is so correct. and there is a family of the doms who take care of an eternal fire which is burning there for ages. nobody knows how long it's burning. and these family of the doms there, they are the owners of this fire. and everybody has to come to the y cremation ground. so they are indispensable part of the society. but they are considered to be untouchables. they are considered to be an outcast. >> no one becomes an untouchable being born a dom is a result of bad karma, acquired through the accumu

snare not -- they're not disconnected from your beliefs.r beliefs and your world view are not just intellectual. they're embodied. thought is embodied, it's there emotionally. and that is crucial. one of the things that you need to do is to get involved in the way people's bodies work. you know, you can see by looking at trump what his body is doing. i mean, it is quite something. it's very often you can see somebody up there and you can tell what they're like by the way their bodies work. >> what do you see from trump? will. >> you see from trump somebody who is aggressive, who is trying to dominate you, who is trying to put you down and trying to be above you in all ways and so on. you see it actually physically in his face, in his mouth, in his hands, in his hands gestures all the time. >> so if he's going to be some version of -- i was thinking about the movie "the manchurian candidate," if he's wired that way, how do we sustain hope for the next four years? >> that's why we have a citizens communication network we're setting up. we're

she said that it would violate her religious beliefs. then she provided these young men with several other florist around town who would do a wonderful job with their marriage ceremony. as we know, that was not good enough. you see, in washington state, they expect full and complete compliance. she was brought up on several charges of discrimination. to set an example they decided instead of just going after her business they would go after her personally. so this woman, she loses the court battle she will not only lose her business, she will also lose her home and life savings. every single thing she had she will lose. this case has been petition to the supreme court, again that explains why it is so important that we put conservative justices on the bench. i asked her, and i said why did you just provide the flowers? nobody would know. space. >> she told me over the telephone, i think she was wagging her finger at me. she said young man, who would you rather obey? god or the government? that's a question many people around this great c

to sharing those beliefs with you. was truly remarkable. >> seth: i think, you know -- and you saying they have to trust you, because i believe religions -- religious people and i think to some degree they have a point to worry that they're going to be mocked. >> yeah. >> seth: and i think you do a lovely job with the show of being open and listening to everything they to say. of course, not just mockery, but religions are under siege in a lot different ways right now. >> yeah. >> seth: you moved from iran in the '80s -- >> yeah. >> seth: to the united states. that was another time of real anti-muslim sentiment. >> yeah. >> seth: do you see parallels right now? >> no, everything is great now. >> seth: okay, good. [ laughter ] i'm so glad. >> yeah. >> seth: i was so worried you were going to be worrisome. >> yeah, no, it's all solved. >> seth: okay, good. >> no, it is funny. i came here during the iran hostage crisis. so this was a time in which -- you know, i was just a 7-year-old kid, but there was an enormous amount

denigrated, downsized to the corporate religious belief, whatever that is. did you stop and think when you were making this decision about the impact it would have on the thousands and thousands, if not millions of employees if you left it up to the owner of the company to say, as you told me, there's some kind family planning i like and some i don't like. >> senator, i take every case that comes before me very seriously. i take the responsibility entrusted in me in ask the lawy and judges of the 10th circuit am i a serious and careful judge, i think you'll hear that i am. i'm delighted to valedictorian aopportunity to talk to you about that decision. as you know in rifra, the religious freedom restoration act, congress was dissatisfied with a level of protection afforded by the supreme court under the first amendment to religious exercise. the court in a case called smith versus maryland written by justice scalia said any neutral law of general applicability is fine. that doesn't offend the first amendment. laws banning the use of paoti, native americans, t

. >> my personal views have nothing to do with my job as a judge. >> let me invoke your beliefs as a commentator. do you believe it was the right result based on your understanding, not your personal beliefs about whether contraceptives are a good thingo or a bad thing but your belief about the constitutional underpinnings, the right to privacy in the fourth amendment due process underpinning of griswold versus connecticut. amm was at the right results? >> senator i consistently and i'm not taking not griswold or any particular case, i've drawn a line that i think is required at the good judge to be fair and to respect the separation of powers without respect to president. the president in the united states supreme court has i was talking about for senator flakes they all deserve respect of a judge. >> some more than others. >> senator depends upon the factors under the loft precedene including the age of thee president how often it's been reaffirmed, the reliance interest surrounding it weather was correctly decided whether id was constitutional versus statutory and a number of othe

, but in fact, it might kind of exacerbate beliefs in meritocracy. so when your status is called into question it might cling to it a little more. this is what mary talked about minutes ago indie book the velvet glove. she talked about how legitimate might be this desire may be exacerbated when he gets called into question and when this is public discussion of inequality. and overall these universities, and it's not just these top universities. it's most university getting increase on selected. so every year, i'm sure in what you does this, there's a campus newspaper article, lowest admit rate everywhere and supposed be a signal that our quality is improving. our status is rising. like this is something to celebrate. there's this belief that becoming more and more exclusive is a good thing and it fuels this believe in meritocracy. and it leads to what was called ultra meritocracy. we know that research shows when systems become more exclusive it leads to greater inequality in terms of the outcome. and more reliance on these kind of quantitative measu

our institutions are what have held us together, a belief they can deliver. what worries me the most and i never thought i would have to make this speech, or want to make this speech, but the almost drumbeat of denigration of the institutional structures that govern us is dangerous. when you delegitimize the court you delegitimize the legislative body and it it makes it impossible to reach compromise. we are a diverse and great nation and in order for this democracy to function we have to remember it requires consensus at the end of the day. without consensus, we have chaos. it is not just joe biden saying this. it is an our constitution. we have to remind ourselves how important this document is and i am not trying to be professor joe biden and talk constitutional law. i am talking about the essence of what it is. it is that we really do believe all men and women are created equal. that is the deal. we really do think that there should be separation of powers without knowing the doctrine of separation of powers. we know the court has the right to overrule a

this is a rejection of the belief that the path forward on energy is through additional federal regulations. mr. president, you understand the path forward is through american ingenuity and entrepreneurship. as important as the action you are about to take ages, it's the reaction from the private sector, from these individuals standing to my left. our partnership in the private sector is vital to our ability to deliver on these energy outcomes that americans want, affordable, reliable, clean, safe, secure energy. in my early service in the trump administration, i met with a wide variety of energy stakeholders and there is a tremendous focus on increased innovation and exploring new opportunities but i've also seen the downside of the government policies that have resulted in the distorted markets and the weakening of the american energy portfolio. the sql miners that have been sidelined without a thought given to their future. we have seen the power grid tested because the fuel diversity has been diminished to benefit one technology over another. and we've seen where the regulatory review p

it says that if there is any sincerely held religious belief, earnestly held belief, the government must be strict scrutiny for it -- strict scrutiny being the highest known standard in american law. >> the reason i ask these questions, there is no legitimate concern. i hear stories from my grandparents when signs used to say no irish or non-catholic. i'm sure senator feinstein can speak about those of her religion. president trump promised a muslim man, he still has on his website to this day, his call for a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states. republican congressman recently said the best thing the president can do for his muslim ban is to make sure he has gorsuch on the supreme court before the appeals get to that point. >> senator, a lot of people say a lot of silly things. >> that's saying this congressman wanted you on the court's you could oppose a muslim ban. >> senator, he has no idea how i rule in that case. senator, i'm not going to say anything here that would give anybody any idea how i would rule in any case like that could come before the supr