there has been since time immemorial. tuner, an who makes a box, and an antenna am a doesn't pay transmission consent. they're providing consumer equipment. the companies that have rights that go along with being able to buy content, being able to force people to sell them content, they have a monopoly right in markets, because they have the rights to public assess -- access. there are a big day of riots -- there are a bouquet of rights. here is the internet, no rights. absolutely no rights. futureconstraints of the , we do not know what is going to happen these of the net neutrality. system with -- ecosystem with a tremendous amount of uncertainty. here's a tremendous new technology. two,d you can equate the they have the rights and protections that a cable company does. is making noregime sense. every car radio needs to pave retransmission fees? is whattion scheme you're talking about. lex will be the difference youtubeaereo and taking broadcast programs? >> structure early, technologically, a huge amount of difference.

a distinction, has been since time immemorial on equipment providers and npds or cable companies, if you will. the person who makes a tuner, a television set, a box, an antenna, doesn't pay retransmission consent because they're providing equipment to the consumer. whereas companies that have statutory rights that go along with being able to buy content, being able to force people to sell them content even though they may be competitive they have monopoly rights in markets because they have the rights to public access on electric utility poles. i mean, there's a bouquet of rights that come along, and as part of that they have to pay broadcasters. so here is the internet, has no rights. zero. absolutely no rights, in fact, severe constraints and threat of the future because we don't know what's going to happen vis-a-vis neutrality, we don't know what's going to happen vis-a-vis caps, we don't know any of these things. so here's an ecosystem that has absolutely no rights, a tremendous amount of uncertainty, and in comes a company that creates interesting technology, and the idea that y

it as a change by the california supreme court of this institution that's been around since time immemorial? >> the california supreme court, like this supreme court, decides what the law is. the california supreme court decided that the equal protection and due process clauses of that california constitution did not permit excluding gays and lesbians from the right to get married -- >> you -- you've led me right into a question i was going to ask. the california supreme court decides what the law is. that's what we decide, right? we don't prescribe law for the future. we decide what the law is. i'm curious, when -- when did -- when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the fourteenth amendment was adopted? sometimes -- some time after baker, where we said it didn't even raise a substantial federal question? when -- when -- when did the law become this? >> when -- may i answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? when did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? when did it become unconstitutional to assign ch

there is still immemorial symposium every year in his honor. he had a deep knowledge and understanding of the law and was open to and respectful of all the points and positions presented to him. he made sure he knew every fact and aspect of a case before you made a decision on whether to issue a complaint. most importantly he cared deeply about the impact his decision would have on the workplace. he knew that real people would be affected by what he did, and you worked hard to make sure his decisions or fair and honest. he was a role model, and i will strive to follow his example, should i become a member of the board. i also worked at a private firm in detroit and then became a staff lawyer for the international union united autoworkers. i served as deputy general counsel for two years handling the day-to-day administration before coming to washington d.c. to join the general counsel's office where i advocated for their positions, including before congress. my work on issues over the years has given me a deep appreciation for the work that the