waging underlaying we will create a kind of feeling that no commitment to agreements that were neutral the project reconciliation we are partnered. we will continue to operate. it is not an easy project. it is not slogans. it's a practical project. it's it's not required. efforts in order. we cannot blame one side alone. for those who are committed the greatest margin, but we are all -- we are all partners. >> this will be the next one year. >> director of the project and middle east democracy. you made a very compelling. that in order to inspire iraqi sunnis living under dash controlled territory to take up arms and a fight against dash that we have to offer those a vision of the future that they could help to have an division the trees them better than they were treated before the government. clearly stated by people such as yourself. what are the main obstacles how can we begin to overcome those objections? >> regard to legislations most prominent after the committee provided its final report on law. the required discussion decide the matter. large blocks that can. [inaudible conver

justice kagan: as i understand it, there were three subsidiary findings that underlay this conclusion. the first is the one we talked a little bit about with miss konrad. it has to do with the ceiling effects, which as i understand it, you don't at all defend. and the second is the idea that 500 milligrams of this would likely kill a patient in 30 minutes or an hour. that seems to me irrelevant given that a lethal dose is consistent with the unbearable. and the third is that the dose would keep a patient unconscious while a needle is inserted into his thigh. which also seems irrelevant given the -- what everybody understands to be the much much, much greater potential of pain of potassium fluoride. so those were the three findings and one of them nobody thinks is anything other than nonsense and the other two are irrelevant. is than the case? mr. wyrick: i will take those in reverse order. the third actually is relevant. these petitioners and the amended complaint describe the setting of the iv as an invasive procedure involving pain. justice kagan: it does not sound pleasant to have

the calculation clearly underlay hillary clinton's roosevelt island speech over the weekend.she hardly tried to inspire. what she did instead was outline liberal policies and celebrate the rib lal coalition t. theory seems to be those policies are sufficiently popular and that coalition sufficiently enlarged that together they can bring her victory, no matter how meager her political talent or suspect her character to thwart her strategy, republicans need an agenda that defies the caring kature. hillary clinton is betting republicans won't make the case that conservative principles can help americans address their practical challenges. surely someone can prove her wrong. >> bill chris tashlgs howard dean, let's go to you. what's your response? >> can i say one thing? this presumes of course unfairly and maybe untruthfully that hillary clinton will be the nominee. what about the bernie sanders-howard dean wing of the democratic party t. anti-war populous. >> martin o'malley. >> burn himself, bernie will nick hillary and challenge her as gene mccarthy did in '68. this enthe cre

regarding cohabitation and intimacy outside of marriage so that there is no criminal conduct the underlaye things. if a state decides that no marriage, that wouldn't violate a fundamental right. the fundamental right at stake was the right to be left alone not the right to force the government to come into your home and recognize something and to give you benefits. those are two very different things. you can draw the analogy to the abortion context. i'm reluctant to bring that up but in roe v. wade and casey this court says the government cannot interfere in the private choice. that's a fundamental right. the court says that a woman cannot force the government to come purchase the impact by paying for. likewise lawrence said the government cannot interfere in private intimate conduct. our position is that the court cannot say but yes, you can force the state entities relationships by forcing them to recognize and give benefits to anyone. that's not the way our fundamental rights doctrine works. justice kagan, to get back to point again about how the constitution test the limits there hav