In his question, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, asked Judge Jackson about same-sex marriage, arguing that the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which said same-sex marriage is a fundamental right, is in conflict with the beliefs of some religions.
“When the Supreme Court decides that something that is not even in the Constitution is a fundamental right and no state can pass any law that is contrary to the Supreme Court’s edict, especially in an area where people have sincerely had religious beliefs, does it not necessarily create a conflict between what people may believe as a matter of their religious doctrine or beliefs and what the federal government says is the law of the land? ” asked Cornyn.
“It’s a nature of rights,” Jackson replied. “That when there is a right, it means that there are limits to regulation, even if people regulate according to their sincere religious beliefs.”
Under further pressure on whether it is a legal act, Jackson said the Supreme Court considered it to be an “application of the substantive fair trial clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” which ensures equal protection under the law.
Cornyn went on to bash the court on what he called the establishment of a new “unlisted court” and asked Jackson what other unlisted rights are “out there.”
“Senator, I can not say that. It is a hypothetical one that I am not in a position to comment on. The rights that the Supreme Court has recognized as substantive justice rights are enshrined in its case law,” she said.
Later, Cornyn lamented that he believes “nominees from both parties tend to be overtrained.”
-ABC News’ Trish Turner