the decision and kowalski made clear that a lawyer's future prospective relationships with clients was insufficient to establish the necessary closeness. and i think that is on all fours, i think, with this case. a relationship with a client is -- judge: that those were people that are ephemeral at this point. am i correct? >> future clients. that is correct. >> does he have current clients, and he is a member of the class, and his business actually is primarily dealing with the class that is at issue, as to funerals and burials. eric murphy: i would think you could make the same distinction. i think he is talking about future clients. he has not identified any other specific clients. the response to kowalski is to cite craig versus warren, which was the case dealing with beer vendords. kowalski established craig as being to be where the transaction between the two parties is itself illegal. in that case, the vendors cannot sell beer to minors. judge: if there was no impediment to reaching these issues -- essentially the same issue in the tennessee and kentucky cases. it starts to look

. >> explorer, this is kowalski reporting visual contact with debris.e sat... >> martin: the movie "gravity" dramatized the devastating effect manmade debris travelling at 17,000 miles per hour could have on the international space station. the jspoc tracks dead satellites, old rocket boosters, even stray space gloves, and alerts satellite operators and astronauts if a collision is likely. >> raymond: last year, in 2014 the international space station was maneuvered three times to avoid colliding with a piece of debris. a lot of the debris that's threatenin was created in 2007 when the chinese tested a ground-based anti-satellite weapon. it crashed into one of their old weather satellites 530 miles above the earth, shattering it into pieces. >> raymond: this is the debris that resulted from the 2007 chinese a-sat. so this is about 3,000 pieces of debris just from that one event. >> martin: that came just from that one collision? >> raymond: just from that one collision. >> martin: debris apart, how important was that test in terms of revealing chinese s

the response to coffee -- kowalski is, call ski itself distinguished craig as being about the transaction between the two parties is itself illegal. in that case, [inaudible] to minors. there was no impediment to reaching these issues. it is essentially the same issue in the kentucky cases. either by upholding or invalidating then what do we care about? you have the decision and barring a meaningful distinction between the state and nonrecognition laws, it would make a difference. >> the state would either, depending on what the opinion would say. i think that is within the perspective of these cases. that is the easiest way out with respect to third party standing. the other factor is a hindrance. these are all over the country right now. there is not too much of a hindrance to the gay and lesbian community asserting a right. >> you get the sense that they are measuring a trajectory. and it is fair to say to -- that the supreme court opinion trajectory favors the plaintiffs. it is fair to say that those cases do not necessarily answer the question here. it just does. from -- to windsor,