Return to Transcripts main page


Kavanaugh Supreme Court Hearing. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired September 5, 2018 - 12:00   ET


[12:00:00] GRAHAM: -- philosophy of judging was his, which, as applied to the law and Constitutional principles, was -- be ready to adopt them to a modern context. So President Obama nominated Sotomayor because he wanted someone whose philosophy of judging was his.

I expect that to happen. If Donald Trump is president in 2020, he'll be our next president. If it's somebody else, I expect that to happen.

To my colleagues on the other side, what do you really expect? You should celebrate, even though you don't vote for him -- and I don't know why you wouldn't -- the quality of the man chosen by President Obama. Elena Kagan and Sotomayor came from the progressive wing of the judging world, and of legal thought. They're absolutely highly- qualified, good, decent people, and they got -- see if I can find vote totals -- Ms. Kagan got 63 votes, and Sonia Sotomayor got 68.

It's going to bother me that you don't get those numbers. But what bothers me is they should have gotten 90. They should have gotten 95. Anthony Kennedy got 97. Anthony -- Antonin Scalia got 98. Ruth Bader Ginsburg got 96. So what's happened?

Between then and now, advise and consent has taken on a different meaning. It used to be the understanding of this body that elections have consequences, and you would expect the president, who won the election, to pick somebody of their philosophy.

I promise you that when Strom Thurmond voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he did not agree with her legal philosophy, and I doubt if Senator Leahy agreed with Justice Scalia. Senator Leahy has voted for a lot of Republicans. I have voted for everyone presented since I have been here, because I find them to be highly-qualified, coming from backgrounds I would expect the president in question to choose from.

So as to your qualifications, how long have you been a judge?

KAVANAUGH: I've been judge for 12 years.

GRAHAM: How many opinions have you written?

KAVANAUGH: I have written over 300 opinions.

GRAHAM: OK. Do you think there's a lot we can learn from those opinions, if we spent time looking at them?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, I am very proud of my opinions, and I -- as I mentioned, I tell people, "Don't just read about the opinions. Read the opinions." I'm very proud of them.

GRAHAM: You were nominated by President Trump on July the 9th, my birthday, which I thought was a pretty good birthday present for somebody who thinks like I do -- and I think that may have something to do with that -- at 9 o'clock. By 9:23, Chuck Schumer says, "I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh." By 9:25, Senator Harris: "Trump Supreme Court Justice Nominee Judge Kavanaugh represents a direct and fundamental threat to the rights and healthcare of hundreds of millions of America -- Americans. I will oppose his nomination." Elizabeth Warren, at 9:55: "President -- Brett Kavanaugh's record as a judge and lawyer is clear: hostile to healthcare for millions, opposed to the CFPB, corporate accountability, thinks President Trump is above the law." On and on and on. Nancy Pelosi at 10:11, Bernie Sanders at 10:18: "If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court, it will have profoundly negative effect on workers' rights, women's rights and voting rights for the decades to come."

All I can say -- within an hour and 18 minutes of your nomination, you became the biggest threat to democracy in the eyes of some of the most partisan people in the country who would hold Kagan and Sotomayor up as highly qualified, and would challenge any Republican dare vote against them.

You live in unusual times, as I do. You should get more than 90 votes, but you won't, and I am sorry it has gotten to where it has. It's got nothing to do about you.

If you don't mind, and you don't have to, what did you tell your children yesterday about the hearing?

[12:05:00] KAVANAUGH: They did as they -- I'll -- I'll tell them what they told me. I don't think I'll -- they gave me a big hug and said, "Good job, Daddy." And Margaret, before she went to bed, made a special trip down and said, "Give me a special hug."

GRAHAM: I just wish if we could have a hearing where the -- the nominee's kids could show up. Is that asking too much?


GRAHAM: So what kind of country have we become? None of this happened just a couple years ago. It's getting worse and worse and worse, and all of us have a -- an obligations to try to correct it where we can.

Roe v. Wade -- are you familiar with the case?

KAVANAUGH: I am, Senator.


GRAHAM: Yeah. Can you, in 30 seconds, give me the general holding of Roe v. Wade?

KAVANAUGH: As elaborated upon in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, a woman has a Constitutional right, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, in the Constitution to obtain an abortion up to the point of viability, subject to reasonable regulations by the state, so long as those reasonable regulations do not constitute an undue burden on the woman's right.

GRAHAM: OK. As to how the system works, can you sit down with five -- you and four other judges, and overrule Roe v. Wade just because you want to?

KAVANAUGH: Senator, Roe v. Wade's an important precedent of the Supreme Court; been reaffirmed...

GRAHAM: Don't you have to have a case, as of -- I mean, you just can't...


GRAHAM: I -- "What are you -- what are you doing for lunch?" "Let's overrule Roe v. Wade."

KAVANAUGH: I -- I -- I...

GRAHAM: It doesn't work that way, right?

KAVANAUGH: I -- I see what you're asking, Senator. Right, there's -- there's -- the way cases come up to us in that context, or in other contexts, would be a law's passed...

GRAHAM: Can I give you -- yeah. Can I give you an example, because I can do this quicker?


GRAHAM: So some state somewhere, or some town somewhere passes a law that runs into the face of Roe. Somebody will object. They will go to lower courts, and eventually it might come up to the Supreme Court, challenging the foundations of Roe v. Wade. It would take some legislative enactment for that happen, is that correct?

KAVANAUGH: That's correct.

GRAHAM: If there was such a (sic) action by a state or a local government challenging Roe and it came before the Supreme Court, would you listen to both sides?

KAVANAUGH: I listen to both sides in every case, Senator. I have for 12 years, yes.

GRAHAM: When it comes to overruling a long-standing precedent of the court, is there a formula that you use?


GRAHAM: Analysis?

KAVANAUGH: So first of all, you start with the notion of precedent and as I've said to Senator Feinstein in this context, this is a precedent that's been re-affirmed many times over 45 years, including in Planned Parenthood versus Casey, where they specifically consider whether to overrule and re-affirmed and applied all of the stare decisis factors that importantly became precedent on precedent in this -- this context.

But you look at -- there are factors you look at whenever you are considering any precedent.

GRAHAM: So there's a process in place that the court has followed for a very long time, is that correct?

KAVANAUGH: That is correct, Senator.

GRAHAM: Citizens United.


GRAHAM: If somebody said Citizens United has been harmful to the country and made a record that the effects of Citizens United has empowered about 20 or 30 people in the country to run all of the elections in some state or locality somewhere past a -- a ban on soft money and it got to the court, would you at least listen to the argument that Citizens United needs to be revisited?

KAVANAUGH: Of course, listen -- I listen to all arguments. You have an open mind, you get the briefs and arguments -- and some arguments are better than others. Precedent's critically important, it's a foundation of our system, but you listen to all arguments.

GRAHAM: OK. You were -- where were you on September the 11th, 2001?

KAVANAUGH: I was in -- initially I was in my then office in the EOB, and then after the first -- as I recall, for the first building was hit, I was in the counsel's Office in the second floor of the West Wing for the next few minutes.

Then we were all told to go down to the bottom of the West Wing, and then we were all evacuated and I think -- I think the thought was Flight 93 might be headed for the White House, it might've been heading here. And Secret Service, we were being hustled out and then -- then kind of panic, started screaming at us.

Sprint run, and we sprinted out. My wife was a few steps ahead of me, she was President Bush's personal aide at the time, and we sprinted out. She was wearing a black and white checked shirt, I remember, and she -- we sprinted out the front gate kind of into Lafayette Park and no -- no iPhones or anything like that, Blackberries at that point in time.


We didn't have that, and our cellphones didn't work so we were all just kind of out there. I remember somehow ending up seeing on TV down more on Connecticut Avenue, there were TV's out -- Mayflower Hotel, I remember I was with Sara Taylor who worked at the White House and we watched -- we were watching as the -- standing with her when the two -- when the two buildings -- when the buildings fell. GRAHAM: So when somebody says post-9/11 that we've been at war and it's called the War on Terrorism, do you generally agree with that concept?

KAVANAUGH: I do Senator because Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which is still in effect and that was passed of course on September 14th, 2001, three days later.

GRAHAM: Let's talk about the law in war. Is there a body of law called the law of armed conflict?

KAVANAUGH: There is -- there is such a body, Senator.

GRAHAM: Is there a body of law that's called the basic criminal law?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, Senator.

GRAHAM: Are there differences between those two bodies of law?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, Senator.

GRAHAM: From an American citizen's point of view, do your constitutional rights follow you? If you're in Paris, does the Fourth Amendment protect you as an American from your own government?

KAVANAUGH: From your own government, yes.

GRAHAM: OK. So if you're in Afghanistan, do your constitutional rights protect you against your own government?

KAVANAUGH: If you're an American if Afghanistan, you have constitutional rights against the U.S. government.

GRAHAM: Is there a long-standing...

KAVANAUGH: That's -- that's long-settled law.

GRAHAM: Isn't there also a long-settled law that -- it goes back to Eisentrager case, I can't remember the name of it.

KAVANAUGH: Yes, Johnson vs. Eisentrager.

GRAHAM: Right -- that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy have considered enemy combatants?

KAVANAUGH: They can be.

GRAHAM: Can be.

KAVANAUGH: They can be. They're often -- some -- they're sometimes criminally prosecuted, sometimes treated in the military sense.

GRAHAM: Well let's talk about can be. I think the ...

KAVANAUGH: Under a Supreme Court precedent ...

GRAHAM: Right.

KAVANAUGH: Just want to make -- yeah.

GRAHAM: There's a Supreme Court decision that said that American citizens who collaborated with Nazi saboteurs were tried by the military. Is that correct?

KAVANAUGH: That is correct.

GRAHAM: I think a couple of them were executed.


GRAHAM: So if anybody doubts there's a long-standing history in this country that your constitutional rights follow you wherever you go, but you don't have a constitutional right to turn on your own government and collaborate with the enemy of the nation.

You'll be treated differently. What's the name of the case, if you can recall, that reaffirmed the concept that you could hold one of our own as an enemy combatant if they were engaged in terrorist activities in Afghanistan? Are you familiar with that case?

KAVANAUGH: Yeah, Hamdi.

GRAHAM: OK. So the bottom line is on every American citizen, though you have constitutional rights but you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy. There's a body of law well developed long before 9/11 that understood the difference between basic criminal law and the law of armed conflict.

Do you understand those differences?

KAVANAUGH: I do -- I do understand the -- there are different bodies of law, of course, Senator.

GRAHAM: OK. If you're confirmed, and I believe you will be, what is your hope when all of this is said and done and your time is up, how would you like to be remembered?

KAVANAUGH: A good Dad, a good Judge...

FEINSTEIN: A good husband.

GRAHAM: I think he's getting there.


KAVANAUGH: Good husband.


GRAHAM: Thanks Dianne, you helped him a lot.

(LAUGHTER) Going to be better for you tonight.


KAVANAUGH: Good -- I owe you -- I owe you.


Good son, I'll quickly add.


A good friend. I think -- I think about the pillar -- the pillars of my life are being a Judge of course, being a teacher -- I've done that and I'm -- either way this ends up I'm going to continue teaching. Coaching, as I mentioned, is a huge part of my life, try to continue that.

Senator Kennedy advised me when we met to make sure you keep coaching, even if you get -- I'm going to follow that. Volunteering and being a Dad and a son and a husband and being a friend. You know, I talked about my friends yesterday, I didn't really expect -- I got a little choked up talking about my friends, but ...

GRAHAM: That was well said, you got to tighten it up cause I just ran out of time.



Thank you, Senator. I can go on, as you know, but I'll stop there.


GRAHAM: Thank you.

GRASSLEY: We're -- we're about ready to break for lunch in a vote that we have, and it'll be 30 minutes. But before I do that, I have letters that Senator Feinstein asked me to put into the record from -- 70 letters from people in opposition to your nomination.

And then we also have a -- a -- a -- letters in support of Judge Kavanaugh from hundreds of men and women across the country holding diverse political views. They strongly support his confirmation without objection, and those will also be entered in the record.

And then I wanted to explain the exchange that I had with Senator Leahy that -- just so people don't think that that's something that I did on my own. We had previously sent out a letter, and only Senator Klobuchar up to that point had taken advantage of the letter to be able to ask for documents that were committee confidential so that they could use them at the hearing.

And the only thing I've done for Senator Leahy that wasn't already in that letter was to remind people that -- that we did the same thing for the Gorsuch nomination to the Supreme Court, and it's a policy that Senator Leahy, when he was chairman of the committee, followed. And so the only courtesy was extended to Senator Leahy -- the fact that he didn't make the request by the timeline that was in the letter, which I think was August 25.

We're going to adjourn 30 minutes for a lunch break, and I think that we'll be back here exactly in 30 minutes. If not, Senator -- or Judge Kavanaugh, we will let your staff know if it's going to be a little later, because you never know what happens in the United States Senate when you have a vote.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington, alongside Jake Tapper. And this is CNN's special coverage of the confirmation hearings of the U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. If Kavanaugh makes it through the process before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he will become the fifth conservative leaning justice on the highest court in the land.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: And that, legal watchers believe, will cement the court's conservative majority. It will also become arguably President Trump's most enduring legacy.

On the second day of hearings, protesters once again began their disruptions early.




TAPPER: That continues throughout the hearing, but senators were still able to get to the heart of the concerns that Kavanaugh's critics have, as well as the ammunition that they have in support of Kavanaugh. In terms of the critics, there's this one criticism that deals with him at the center of the Russia investigation.


SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), RANKING MEMBER, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Can a sitting president be required to respond to a subpoena?

BRETT KAVANAUGH, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: So that's a hypothetical question about what would be an elaboration or a difference from U.S. v. Nixon's precise holding.

FEINSTEIN: That's right.

KAVANAUGH: And -- and I think going with the Justice Ginsburg principle, which is really not the Justice Ginsburg alone principal, it's everyone's principle on the current Supreme Court. And as a matter of the canons of judicial independence, I can't give you an answer on that hypothetical question.


BLITZER: And moments ago came this exchange about presidential pardons.


SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D), VERMONT: President Trump claims he has an absolute right to pardon himself. Does he?

BRETT KAVANAUGH, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: The question of self-pardons is something I have never analyzed. It's a question that I have not written about. It's a question, therefore, that's a hypothetical question that I can't begin to answer --

LEAHY: What about --

KAVANAUGH: In this context as a sitting judge and as a nominee to the Supreme Court.

LEAHY: And the other half of that is the obvious one, does the president have the ability to pardon somebody in exchange for a promise from that person they wouldn't testify against him?

KAVANAUGH: Senator, I'm not going to answer hypothetical questions of that sort.


KAVANAUGH: And the reason -- there's a good reason for it. When we get -- when judges don't -- when we decide, we get briefs and arguments of the parties. We have a record. We have an appendix with all the information. We have amicus briefs. And then I -- I never -- I never decide anything alone.


BLITZER: And, Jake, he was making the point that other Supreme Court justice nominees were making these kinds of issues, like a presidential pardon, a presidential subpoena could come before the U.S. Supreme Court in the immediate period ahead and he didn't want to lay out his position.

[12:20:03] TAPPER: I remember as a young campaign reporter asking then Governor George W. Bush a hypothetical and he said, I'm not going to walk through a minefield of hypotheticals. And that's exactly what Brett Kavanaugh did, he avoided walking through any sort of hypothetical minefield because the truth of the matter is, you have to have all the information there.

By the same token, it is also just a fact that he does have his own opinion about Roe v. Wade. And -- and you saw some attempt there by Lindsey Graham to explore the idea that this is precedent and there's really no way to get at what exactly might happen on the court should that come before the court.

BLITZER: But he did show a tremendous knowledge of a lot of these legal issues given the fact he spent 12 years on a federal court here in Washington. TAPPER: Not only that, but, I mean, as somebody who has been steeped

in politics, as somebody who has worked in politics in the Bush White House and other places, he showed that he is political. He has a way of answering questions that is what he is supposed to say at any given moment, including expressing humility in terms of talking about his children, in terms of playing up his role as a father and somebody who does charity work.

In terms of the politics of this hearing, I would say, I don't think that any Democrats, at least as of yet, have laid a glove on him and given any Republican and also the swing Democrats any reason to not vote for him.

BLITZER: We have our -- a full panel of experts and analysts.

Jeffrey Toobin, you've studied the Supreme Court for a long time.

Senator Leahy tried to score some points, insinuating that maybe his earlier confirmation hearings, when he was going to a federal court here in Washington, that he wasn't necessarily telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. How far -- how much success did Senator Leahy have laying a glove on him?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think, in fairness to Senator Leahy, he was setting up something that may or may not be coming in the future. I think a lot of people who are watching probably found that whole exchange pretty mystifying. But, I mean, what it's -- what the basis of it is, is in the early 2000s, there was a Senate staffer for the Republicans who was accused of stealing a bunch of e-mails, including from Senator Leahy. That staffer ultimately had some dealings with Brett Kavanaugh when Brett Kavanaugh was working in the White House.

Senator Leahy was insinuating that Brett Kavanaugh knew that he was trafficking in stolen material and suggesting unethical behavior. Kavanaugh, of course, denied that, but he -- Leahy suggested that there may be e-mails that were disclosed in the course of this investigation that may contradict Kavanaugh.

I think, in fairness, it's important to say, Kavanaugh was not contradicted in terms of what was presented today. But I don't think we've heard the last of that subject, and it will be interesting to keep an eye on it.

BLITZER: John King, what did you think?

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think, number one, Abby pointed this out this morning, that this is the one thing the Trump White House gets -- does really well. For all the chaos, you talk about all the chaos, their judicial nominations, whether it's Gorsuch and now Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, or the dozens of lower court judges, they have a process and a team in place and they work closely with this committee so that they're -- in this hearing they're trying to get out ahead of the Democrats, questions about Roe v. Wade from Republicans, not just Democrats, questions about executive power from Republicans, not just Democrats, because they're trying to get out ahead of it to get Kavanaugh on the record early, to make it harder for the Democrats to get him.

Now, to Jake's point, I remember covering the Bush White House when Brett Kavanaugh was there. I remember him when he worked for Ken Starr when I covered the Clinton White House. He gets the politics.

So if you're a conservative -- if you're a conservative or if you're trying to make the case you want to vote for Kavanaugh on executive power, he praised Chief Justice Berger, a Nixon appointee, who led a unanimous decision to force President Nixon to comply with the subpoena. If you want to oppose him, he wouldn't answer the specific question about the here and now. What if this is President Trump? If you're an anti-abortion conservative, a pro-life conservative, you hear him there say, yes, it's precedent, but -- but Casey versus Planned Parenthood does allow reasonable regulation. It talks about the point of viability. That is where the state law debates are going as more and more states try to move, because of medical advances, technological advances or politics, trying to move the point of viability back sooner. So you can find it there. If you're trying to vote for him on that issue, he said it's the precedent and the courts make the decision on precedent. He is a very practiced politician in giving his answers.


DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: The difference between -- the difference between what you said about President George W. Bush, then candidate, that he's not going to walk into a minefield. Donald Trump jumped all over the minefield. I mean he was very, very clear when he was running because that was his way at appealing to conservatives who were skeptical of him, particularly evangelicals. I am going to find somebody who will get rid of Roe v. Wade. So it is even more critical and understandable for senators of both parties to try to get specifics and drill down on this nominee on that question.

And his answer was very much, as you guys were talking about, it showed the savvy with which he understands because of his political and judicial experience. His refrain was, I don't live in a bubble, which is a wink and a nod. It's almost a Rorschach test of a wink and a nod. Meaning, like, you know, conservatives can look at that and say, he's one of us. Others who are on the fence can look at that and say, oh, OK, so he's saying he understands the real world, pointed at Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, the two abortion rights Republicans.

[12:25:25] TAPPER: Right. Yes.


JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Yes, I was going to say, there are two messages I think he wants to communicate. One is on social policy issues, he is going to be in the mainstream, abortion, affirmative action, gay marriage. Those kinds of things. I think he's going to try to reassure people.

But the other thing is the credibility issue. And I think that's where the questioning from Senator Leahy came from and I think we're going to see that with Senator Durbin also. They're going to try to undermine his prior testimony and I think the key will be to see, does he get defensive? Does he -- does he worry about what might be hidden in some records or does he try to say, as he did, I told the truth and the whole truth and stick to that theme there.

PHILLIP: Although Leahy was setting something up -- if Leahy was setting something up with his questioning, it's not clear to me that he actually achieved what he was trying to do. I mean this would only matter if there was something that was revealed later that showed Kavanaugh's earlier testimony to actually, in fact, be untrue.


PHILLIP: This is the challenge -- I think the challenge for Democrats, though, is that they're not spending a whole lot of time on judicial philosophy because they realize Kavanaugh is smart enough to navigate his way through that and they're pivoting to issues, as Joan mentioned, of credibility. But I'm not sure they have the goods on the credibility, and that's what we need to find out later.

PSAKI: But what was -- what was interesting about the Leahy exchange is he came in very prepared to say nothing essentially, which is what every Supreme Court nominee does. In that moment he seemed a little bit off his game. Like he was surprised, like he wasn't quite sure what was being asked. Their exchange between Grassley and Leahy was also interesting because it seemed to imply that there may be more that the committee has. And that's introducing new information, perhaps.

Now, they could leak those documents. I don't know what they have. But that's something that may come back even later today. And that's different from a lot of these debates.

I expect, as we get to some of the, shall we say, younger senators or more lively senators, they will be more aggressive on things like Roe v. Wade and health care and even guns. And dive into some of these questions in a way that the first few really didn't.

TAPPER: Senator, I want to ask you a question. Senator Graham, at one point, cited past votes for previous nominees in which the votes were overwhelmingly in support of even somebody as conservative as Justice Scalia, or somebody as liberal as Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And even Sotomayor and Kagan, I believe, had votes in the 60s. That is almost certainly not going to happen here. The odds are that Kavanaugh will become the next nominee, but he'll do so with fewer than 60 votes.

What changed? What was the reason that things have gotten as partisan as they have? Even from the days of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia to the -- to the Kagan-Sotomayor era?

RICK SANTORUM, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I mean, several things. Donald Trump. I think that you can't -- you can't ignore the Trump factor in all this and how much Democrats hate Donald Trump and hate -- and want to block everything he does. And, you know, look at the Massachusetts primary. I mean just -- there's just a -- the base is on fire and any Democrat that doesn't margin step in blocking Trump at every motion. So I think that's a big part of it. But, I mean, Dana and I were talking about this earlier, I mean, look,

there has been a real change. I was in the United States Senate. I mean you might find this hard to believe. I voted for almost every single Clinton nominee. I mean -- and some of them were folks I wouldn't -- I mean I wouldn't trust to judge, you know, judge me on things -- but the bottom line was, were they qualified? Did they -- you know, were they fair? Did they have good temperament? And that was it.

And, you see, you know, the election mattered. You get to choose who you want to pick. That has been thrown out because of the -- this is just a complete politicization of the judiciary caused by the judiciary involving themselves more in politics. The judiciary becoming, at least as conservatives see and as Democrats want, as a super legislature to basically decide all the issues. When they jumped into that field, now they've gotten involved in the area of politics, and that's why these confirmations are so contentious (ph).

TOOBIN: Well, I -- that is very much a -- you know, conservatives are very upset when judges jump in and get involved. Conservatives are delighted when they overturn gun control laws. Conservatives are delighted when Obamacare may get overturned starting in a case today. Conservatives are delighted when campaign finance laws passed by the Congress are overturned. So judicial activism wasn't invented by liberals. It is -- it is much -- it is, you know, very much in the eye of the beholder, isn't it, Rick?

[12:30:05] SANTORUM: But -- well, I would agree to some degree that you're right that, you know, we -- we do appreciate when the court gets it right and doesn't -- and --