i am charles haynes, and i direct part of this program.e are so happy to be partnering once again with "moment" magazine, which is a wonderful publication, as many of you know, part of great programs here, and we are, together sponsoring a discussion that is about a contentious, murky, but always fascinating topic, which is the u.s. supreme court, and we have an outstanding panel. i would just note that on this panel, we have over 100 years of experience covering the u.s. supreme court, and that is just lyle denniston. [laughter] not quite, but you are going to get there soon. we are very, very fortunate to have this outstanding panel. i'm going to turn things over to amy schwartz, who is the opinion manager over at "mlmoment" magazine, and i will turn it over to her. >> good evening, everyone. welcome to tonight's discussion about the supreme court decisions. my name is amy schwartz, and i am the opinion editor of "moment" magazine, and this is the premier magazine of to which culture and relisten. -- religion. the editor and chief is her

i am charles haynes, and i direct this program.e are so happy to be partnering once again with "moment" magazine, which is a wonderful publication, as many of you know, part of great programs here, and we are, together, sponsoring a discussion that is about a contentious, murky, but always fascinating topic, which is the u.s. supreme court, and we have an outstanding panel. i would just note that on this panel, we have over 100 years of experience covering the u.s. supreme court, and that is just lyle denniston. [laughter] not quite, but you are going to get there soon. we are very, very fortunate to have this outstanding panel. i'm going to turn things over to amy schwartz, who is the opinion editor over at "moment" magazine, and i will turn it over to her. [applause] >> good evening, everyone. welcome to tonight's discussion . my name is amy schwartz, and i am the opinion editor of "moment" magazine, and this -- magazine. the editor and chief is here but toiling away on a deadline, so making an appearance, and our wonderful partn

and wonderful partners, charles haynes and the freedom center of the newseum institute.e looking forward to a wonderful evening. thank you also to the staff of both our magazine and the institute have done so much work to bring this evening together. our topic tonight is one that as really passionate result is a couple decades ago would've been considered widely to do. our supreme court justices influence in their decision-making by the religious conviction they bring to the bench? most casual observers and even most legal observers would argue back then that they shouldn't be bringing religious convictions to the bench, if they have them, that as a supreme court justice they would've said, and as john roberts intended at his confirmation in 2000 come as an umpire and far from pipeline assemblies come he can simply call them as he sees them. much has changed since that early consensus and even since i confirmation hearing almost injures ago. for one the traditional religious makeup of the court has altered dramatically. and for another we know a lot more about those view

is here but toiling away on a deadline, so making an appearance, and our wonderful partners, charles haynes and the freedom center of the newseum institute. we are looking forward to a wonderful evening. thank you also to the staff of both our magazine and the institute, who have done so much work to bring this evening together. our topic tonight is one that as recently as a couple of decades ago would have been widely considered taboo. our supreme court justices, are they influenced in their decision-making by the religious opinions they bring to the bench? most casual observers and even most legal observers would argue back then that they should not be bringing religious conviction to the bench, if they had them, but as a supreme court justice, they would have said, and as john roberts contended at his confirmation hearing in 2005, he is like an umpire, and far from applying his own beliefs, he simply calls them as he see's them. but much has changed since that earlier consensus and even since that confirmation hearing almost 10 years ago. the traditional religious makeup of the court has

is here but toiling away on a deadline, so making an appearance, and our wonderful partners, charles haynes the freedom center of the newseum institute. we are looking forward to a wonderful evening. thank you also to the staff of both our magazine and the institute, who have done so much work to bring this evening together. that asc tonight is one recently as a couple of decades ago would have been widely considered taboo. our supreme court justices, are they influenced in their decision-making by the opinions they bring to the bench? most casual observers and even most legal observers would argue back then that they should not be bringing religious conviction to the bench, if they had them, but as a supreme court justice, they would have said, and as john roberts contended at his confirmation hearing in 2005, far from applying his own believes, he simply calls them as he see's them. but much has changed since that earlier consensus and even since that confirmation hearing almost 10 years ago. the traditional makeup of the dramatically,ged and we know more about the views then we knew befo