The Chief Justice's Gambit [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The Chief Justice's Gambit


CAcop
06-28-2012, 23:16
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/28/the_chief_justices_gambit_114646.html

Short version is this: Obama is playing checkers, Roberts is playing chess.

When you read this you have to think like a lawyer. Nothing is completely black/white, liberal/conservative.

Much like how the most important part of Heller/McDonald is the right to self defense, not the right to own guns being an individual right.

427
06-29-2012, 00:03
That's an interesting take.

certifiedfunds
06-29-2012, 00:32
That IS very interesting. Did Roberts snooker the left side of the bench?

Fred Hansen
06-29-2012, 01:01
Takes grasping at straws to a whole 'nother level.

barbedwiresmile
06-29-2012, 04:43
Not bad under the circumstances. It only took the GOP less than 18 hours to come up with this rather strained spin. Will this wizardly 'long view' "chess" rationalization have legs or will they need to come up with something better in the coming days?

Mister_Beefy
06-29-2012, 05:32
"we'll see" says the old man, as he cleans his rifle.

The Machinist
06-29-2012, 05:46
This is twice, I've seen Roberts' betrayal of the Constitution and the American people likened to a game of chess. This is how you rationalize yesterday's attack on your freedom? Pathetic doesn't even begin to describe this level of sycophancy. It's beyond disgusting.

Do you people even realize that by siding with Roberts, you're also siding with the progressive stooges he's in league with? Who in the hell do you think you're fooling?

JFrame
06-29-2012, 05:49
Interesting food for thought...The article might be instrumental as a devil's advocate and counterbalance against the overwhelmingly negative opinions coming out on Roberts from conservatives.

I'm not saying I believe the article -- but it doesn't hurt to view events from various areas outside the box to see how things play out.


.

DOC44
06-29-2012, 06:04
Roberts may turn out to be a very good chess player....... Making the move to "tax" may turn into a "tax mate".

Doc44


Thought about that yesterday.... as I was grasping at straws.

Doc44

aircarver
06-29-2012, 06:33
Roberts said we have the freedom to make stupid choices.

Superman isn't coming along to fix them.

We will have to do that ourselves.....

.

JFrame
06-29-2012, 06:40
Roberts said we have the freedom to make stupid choices.


Evidently, Americans have been making those choices liberally for some time now [word choice not an accident].


.

Cavalry Doc
06-29-2012, 07:15
Not bad under the circumstances. It only took the GOP less than 18 hours to come up with this rather strained spin. Will this wizardly 'long view' "chess" rationalization have legs or will they need to come up with something better in the coming days?

Yeah, spinning this pile of crap into gold strands is just not working for me. It's a very disappointing verdict, and now we know for sure that Roberts is another Kennedy, not a Scalia.

That being said, the sigline hasn't changed. I'm still for avoiding more disasters insread if encouraging them. There are no good choices this time around, except for the obvious choice of selecting the most conservative legislators you can find.

For all those Texans out there, Ted Cruz and the Tea Party need your help on 31 July. Don't abstain.

aircarver
06-29-2012, 07:18
For all those Texans out there, Ted Cruz and the Tea Party need your help on 31 July. Don't abstain.

I'll be there ! ... :thumbsup:

.

Sam Spade
06-29-2012, 07:34
Yeah, spinning this pile of crap into gold strands is just not working for me. It's a very disappointing verdict, and now we know for sure that Roberts is another Kennedy, not a Scalia.


Actually, we don't know that. The man is at the pinnacle of his career, answerable only to his conscience and history. He gave us Heller and MacDonald and Citizen's United.

When someone like that does something like this, it's proper to dig deeper.

Fred Hansen
06-29-2012, 08:00
What Roberts did is the very definition of legislating from the bench. I don't know a single conservative who approves of judges writing--or as in this case re-writing--our laws. It is wrong when liberals do it, and it is wrong when so-called conservatives do it.

CAcop
06-29-2012, 08:17
Yeah, spinning this pile of crap into gold strands is just not working for me. It's a very disappointing verdict, and now we know for sure that Roberts is another Kennedy, not a Scalia.

That being said, the sigline hasn't changed. I'm still for avoiding more disasters insread if encouraging them. There are no good choices this time around, except for the obvious choice of selecting the most conservative legislators you can find.

For all those Texans out there, Ted Cruz and the Tea Party need your help on 31 July. Don't abstain.

Your Texas sentence, does it have to have to do with Cruz wanting to opt out of Obamacare?

I ask because the article specifically mentioned Obamacare's collapse if TX opts out.

Like I've said in other threads I think Obama won the battle but lost the war. Many wars actually.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

lancesorbenson
06-29-2012, 08:41
Roberts' job isn't to play political games. He could have simply said that there is nothing in the Constitution that allows a law which forces any citizen to buy any thing. Instead he called this coercive healthcare law a tax, which it really isn't, and opened a Pandora's box we'll be dealing with for years to come.

Philo Beddoe
06-29-2012, 09:10
Alas, it begins to come into focus.

For the entirety of my 32-years in the construction business, I have marvelled at the intricate, patient game of chess that the old money families always play. The newbies, like me, scamper about busily making deals and and working feverishly to take care of next month's anmd next year's obligations and plans. But the old money doesn't need money for next month or next year, and thus they have the luxury of thinking much further out, and make much more money as a result.

I've watched the game the 2 biggest owners of real estate play in this area. They buy up farmland out southwest of town for $250/acre. They buy it by the sections. Then they quietly get their family members on school boards, on city councils, in mayoralships. Then they begin moving the town in the direct of their farmland, which they will sell for $10/sq. ft., pocketing a handsome profit of roughly $455,000 per acre.

It may have taken 15-20 years for this to happen, but that's how the old/smart money plays the game. We scrap for the pennies, and they position themselves for the tens of millions.

It appears that Justice Roberts may have been thinking further ahead than most of us can comprehend.

Fred Hansen
06-29-2012, 09:21
It appears that Justice Roberts may have been thinking further ahead than most of us can comprehend.A regular Marc Antony at the Lupercalia.

http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar_t18.html

certifiedfunds
06-29-2012, 09:53
Alas, it begins to come into focus.

For the entirety of my 32-years in the construction business, I have marvelled at the intricate, patient game of chess that the old money families always play. The newbies, like me, scamper about busily making deals and and working feverishly to take care of next month's anmd next year's obligations and plans. But the old money doesn't need money for next month or next year, and thus they have the luxury of thinking much further out, and make much more money as a result.

I've watched the game the 2 biggest owners of real estate play in this area. They buy up farmland out southwest of town for $250/acre. They buy it by the sections. Then they quietly get their family members on school boards, on city councils, in mayoralships. Then they begin moving the town in the direct of their farmland, which they will sell for $10/sq. ft., pocketing a handsome profit of roughly $455,000 per acre.

It may have taken 15-20 years for this to happen, but that's how the old/smart money plays the game. We scrap for the pennies, and they position themselves for the tens of millions.



You're definitely paying attention. That's exactly how its played.

Ian Moone
06-29-2012, 10:53
For all those Texans out there, Ted Cruz and the Tea Party need your help on 31 July. Don't abstain.

I'm with ya, brother. A vote for Dewhurst is a vote for more of the S.O.S.

Ruble Noon
06-29-2012, 13:58
Actually, we don't know that. The man is at the pinnacle of his career, answerable only to his conscience and history. He gave us Heller and MacDonald and Citizen's United.

When someone like that does something like this, it's proper to dig deeper.

We do know that. Obama's government argued that the mandate was a penalty and constitutional under the commerce clause. Roberts found this to be unconstitutional and rewrote the mandate as a tax.
I really can't believe the lengths that republicans are willing to go to deny that they were bent over and given the hard one by a "conservative" appointed justice.

cowboywannabe
06-29-2012, 14:16
roberts made it very clear, people will get the government they deserve.

Ruble Noon
06-29-2012, 14:19
roberts made it very clear, people will get the government they deserve.

And he will legislate from the bench to ensure that we do.

cowboywannabe
06-29-2012, 14:26
And he will legislate from the bench to ensure that we do.

not quite, he clarified obama care as a tax. this tax can be repealed. romney said he will repeal it. the sc doesnt elect romney, "we" do, or dont.

Ruble Noon
06-29-2012, 14:31
not quite, he clarified obama care as a tax. this tax can be repealed. romney said he will repeal it. the sc doesnt elect romney, "we" do, or dont.

He rewrote it as a tax. If he had not done this obamacare would be history.

cowboywannabe
06-29-2012, 14:35
He rewrote it as a tax. If he had not done this obamacare would be history.

so, who can make it go away now? the people whom elect romney. we will get the government we deserve otherwise.

Ruble Noon
06-29-2012, 14:37
so, who can make it go away now? the people whom elect romney. we will get the government we deserve otherwise.

Romneycare Romney? Good luck.

lancesorbenson
06-29-2012, 16:04
not quite, he clarified obama care as a tax. this tax can be repealed. romney said he will repeal it. the sc doesnt elect romney, "we" do, or dont.

Romney can't appeal anything unless it made it to his desk, assuming he wins. Does anyone think a repeal is gonna make it through the Senate anytime soon? That repeal law will have so many goodies buried in it if it's to even have a shot.

Fred Hansen
06-29-2012, 16:07
so, who can make it go away now? No one.

Cavalry Doc
06-29-2012, 16:20
Your Texas sentence, does it have to have to do with Cruz wanting to opt out of Obamacare?

I ask because the article specifically mentioned Obamacare's collapse if TX opts out.

Like I've said in other threads I think Obama won the battle but lost the war. Many wars actually.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

His opponent is a country club liberal republican that has been very soft on immigration

And yes, Cruz is pushing for repeal.

http://electful.com/candidate/ted-cruz/issues/healthcare

RC-RAMIE
06-29-2012, 16:26
His opponent is a country club liberal republican that has been very soft on immigration

And yes, Cruz is pushing for repeal.

http://electful.com/candidate/ted-cruz/issues/healthcare

Damn Mitt is running for that spot to?


....

wjv
06-29-2012, 16:33
Well Obama has been handing out waivers left and right so couldn't Romney just had out a "blanket" wavier, thus killing O-care?

Ruble Noon
06-29-2012, 16:45
Well Obama has been handing out waivers left and right so couldn't Romney just had out a "blanket" wavier, thus killing O-care?

That depends. Is he willing to go against the law like Obama and Roberts?

Sam Spade
06-29-2012, 17:05
Well Obama has been handing out waivers left and right so couldn't Romney just had out a "blanket" wavier, thus killing O-care?

That's the next issue. Constitutional requirement is that all imposts, excises and duties be uniform throughout the United States. Seems that the waivers have to go.

Not a killer, but it sure would make a whole lot more people reconsider.

Woofie
06-29-2012, 17:15
We do know that. Obama's government argued that the mandate was a penalty and constitutional under the commerce clause. Roberts found this to be unconstitutional and rewrote the mandate as a tax.
I really can't believe the lengths that republicans are willing to go to deny that they were bent over and given the hard one by a "conservative" appointed justice.

If you'll remember during the arguments, the government couldn't make an effective case either way about whether this is a tax or a penalty. The door was left wide open for it to be interpreted by the court.

Ruble Noon
06-29-2012, 17:15
That's the next issue. Constitutional requirement is that all imposts, excises and duties be uniform throughout the United States. Seems that the waivers have to go.

Not a killer, but it sure would make a whole lot more people reconsider.

Are you sure that still applies?

Ruble Noon
06-29-2012, 17:20
If you'll remember during the arguments, the government couldn't make an effective case either way about whether this is a tax or a penalty. The door was left wide open for it to be interpreted by the court.

Yes I remember. The government tried to argue the mandate as a penalty under the commerce clause because they couldn't argue it as a tax due to the Anti-Injunction act. We we were set up from the beginning.

cowboywannabe
06-30-2012, 02:08
Romney can't appeal anything unless it made it to his desk, assuming he wins. Does anyone think a repeal is gonna make it through the Senate anytime soon? That repeal law will have so many goodies buried in it if it's to even have a shot.

is the only seat up for grabs in the white house?

we get the government we deserve.

Bren
06-30-2012, 04:50
not quite, he clarified obama care as a tax. this tax can be repealed. romney said he will repeal it. the sc doesnt elect romney, "we" do, or dont.

Well, most of the posters above you are voting against him, so good luck with that. Because of right wing nuts supporting Obama, Romney has little chance.

cowboywannabe
06-30-2012, 05:40
yeah i know. as usual we are left with the lesser of two evils and many folks will vote for the worse evil, cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Cavalry Doc
06-30-2012, 05:40
For all the Paul guys. Face it, the presidential choices this year suck. Vote or don't vote any way you want in the presidentual race. Your guy lost miserably and you REALLY wanted him to win, so I understand your continued frustration. Get a box of tissues, Have a good cry, get it out of your system.

After your done, Can you let me know what other races you are working on that will help the country?

You do know that there are a bunch of offices up for grabs, don't you?

DonGlock26
06-30-2012, 06:11
Takes grasping at straws to a whole 'nother level.

Yeah, I'm not buying it.


_

71Commander
06-30-2012, 06:26
Not bad under the circumstances. It only took the GOP less than 18 hours to come up with this rather strained spin. Will this wizardly 'long view' "chess" rationalization have legs or will they need to come up with something better in the coming days?

I read about this angle almost immediately after the vote was announced.

Cavalry Doc
06-30-2012, 06:46
Actually, we don't know that. The man is at the pinnacle of his career, answerable only to his conscience and history. He gave us Heller and MacDonald and Citizen's United.

When someone like that does something like this, it's proper to dig deeper.

I dug, and I'm not seeing the silver lining. Whatever maneuvering will get us later, we've lost a measurable amount of free will. Buy this service, or be penalized. I ticked and all this law does is help me personally, and I still don't like it one bit. I've seen what performance measure based healthcare looks like. I'll be able to maneuver through the system to get what I need, but the Majority of America is not going to do well.

In my humble opinion, the dessenting justices were right.

steveksux
06-30-2012, 07:01
I'm thinking the "long term chess game" theory is quite a stretch.

Even if that future comes to pass, I'm thinking its more likely attributed to the "laws of unintended consequences" than a wily master plan hatched years earlier by Roberts.

Randy

syntaxerrorsix
06-30-2012, 07:13
Actually, we don't know that. The man is at the pinnacle of his career, answerable only to his conscience and history. He gave us Heller and MacDonald and Citizen's United.

When someone like that does something like this, it's proper to dig deeper.

This was a horrible decision for states rights.

Just another misinterpretation of the 14A and support for this make believe incorporation doctrine. A complete loss to the states.

aircarver
06-30-2012, 07:30
The more opinion I read about this, the more I believe the Court should have thrown it back and told the dimocrats to pass it again as a tax if they want to keep it.

They shouldn't have let it stand, because it wasn't passed as a tax.

Let's see them pass it again now ..... :steamed:

.

Ruble Noon
06-30-2012, 07:33
I'm thinking the "long term chess game" theory is quite a stretch.

Even if that future comes to pass, I'm thinking its more likely attributed to the "laws of unintended consequences" than a wily master plan hatched years earlier by Roberts.

Randy

Yeah, if this were in fact a brilliant move by Roberts Limbaugh would be championing it as such. Instead he spent the last two days railing about the constitutional violations of this law and this ruling and the treachery of Roberts.
I do have to wonder if Limbaugh had prior knowledge as to how the ruling would come down because he was preparing his audience for this eventuality on the day previous to the verdict. He even called out Roberts as the culprit.

JFrame
06-30-2012, 08:54
I'm thinking the "long term chess game" theory is quite a stretch.

Even if that future comes to pass, I'm thinking its more likely attributed to the "laws of unintended consequences" than a wily master plan hatched years earlier by Roberts.

Randy


Randy -- that's certainly a valid viewpoint.

I'm starting to think that this entire country -- and certainly the government -- operates routinely on unintended consequences.


.

G29Reload
06-30-2012, 09:01
That IS very interesting. Did Roberts snooker the left side of the bench?

No, he did not, and the whole article's main bent fails.

Where he said, "None of the liberals’ previous arguments about the upshot of such a ruling are rendered invalid simply because the chief justice decided that this was a tax (and almost everyone agreed that if Congress had just called it a tax, it would have been constitutional). The court just constricted its Commerce Clause jurisprudence;" is a complete misunderstanding of what happened.

What appeared to be Robert's throwing us a bone by restricting abuse of the Commerce Clause is almost utterly without effect. Roberts was not concurred with or joined by any of the other Justices. As a result, it does not become precedent. It is merely Roberts blathering on in the dicta by himself and expressing his own opinion. The Justices who agreed with him about Commerce were in the dissent, and did not acknowledge Roberts opinion at all. This is also further evidence that Roberts was prepared to rule our way and changed his opinion late in the game, most likely succumbing to political pressure brought by Obama's public condemnations. This also explains what was noted at the reading as Kennedy being visibly angry.

In short, Roberts is a coward who was scared of public opinion, thought that he would be unnecessarily politicizing the Court by tossing it out, so reacted by keeping it. If he thought he would avoid politicizing it, he did so anyway and just took the other side and betrayed us on the Right. HE also took a hatchet to the COTUS, and made a tax where there was none, nor could be under COTUS definitions of what taxes are allowable, and created out of whole cloth things about the law Congress said don't exist. HE legislated from the Bench in the style of the Warren Court.

QNman
06-30-2012, 09:28
Actually, we don't know that. The man is at the pinnacle of his career, answerable only to his conscience and history. He gave us Heller and MacDonald and Citizen's United.

When someone like that does something like this, it's proper to dig deeper.

Agreed. This article makes me wonder. There are some good points there, but it make take time to see.

Dexters
06-30-2012, 11:12
In short, Roberts is a coward who was scared of public opinion, thought that he would be unnecessarily politicizing the Court by tossing it out, so reacted by keeping it. If he thought he would avoid politicizing it, he did so anyway and just took the other side and betrayed us on the Right. HE also took a hatchet to the COTUS, and made a tax where there was none, nor could be under COTUS definitions of what taxes are allowable, and created out of whole cloth things about the law Congress said don't exist. HE legislated from the Bench in the style of the Warren Court.

I think tyou are correct.

Correct me if I am wrong here - The difference between the rational of approving Obamacare based not on the Commerce clause but taxing powers is a distinction without a difference.

The end results for the people are the same under both cases - do something or pay a tax.

The SC didn't weaken the Commerce Clause as you said previously. The SC gave the Congress a tool they have not thought about before (to the best of my knowledge).

G29Reload
06-30-2012, 11:32
The SC didn't weaken the Commerce Clause as you said previously.


I did not say that, and you need to get this right.


Roberts did not protect the Commerce Clause from abuse the way the talking head idiots on TV are saying.

Because he was not joined in that part of the opinion by at least 4 other justices, no precedent was set, and no protection against abuse of the Commerce Clause was provided us. Its status quo and just as vulnerable as before.

Dexters
06-30-2012, 11:40
I did not say that, and you need to get this right.


Roberts did not protect the Commerce Clause from abuse the way the talking head idiots on TV are saying.

Because he was not joined in that part of the opinion by at least 4 other justices, no precedent was set, and no protection against abuse of the Commerce Clause was provided us. Its status quo and just as vulnerable as before.

Does this help?

The SC didn't weaken the Commerce Clause, as you said previously.

Cavalry Doc
06-30-2012, 11:51
Randy -- that's certainly a valid viewpoint.

I'm starting to think that this entire country -- and certainly the government -- operates routinely on unintended consequences.


.

For many years, I've seen much more chaos than control in the system. None of us is as nearly as stupid as all of us together. (with the possible exception of a trojan horse delegate).

Sam Spade
06-30-2012, 12:19
I did not say that, and you need to get this right.


Roberts did not protect the Commerce Clause from abuse the way the talking head idiots on TV are saying.

Because he was not joined in that part of the opinion by at least 4 other justices, no precedent was set, and no protection against abuse of the Commerce Clause was provided us. Its status quo and just as vulnerable as before.

Not how it works as I understand it. Roberts wrote the majority opinion, with which 4 others concurred. There's no requirement that they initial each paragraph.

Since the rejection of the Commerce Clause is required to reach the published opinion, it is not mere dicta.

JFrame
06-30-2012, 12:28
For many years, I've seen much more chaos than control in the system. None of us is as nearly as stupid as all of us together. (with the possible exception of a trojan horse delegate).


Yup...


.

countrygun
06-30-2012, 12:32
I did not say that, and you need to get this right.


Roberts did not protect the Commerce Clause from abuse the way the talking head idiots on TV are saying.

Because he was not joined in that part of the opinion by at least 4 other justices, no precedent was set, and no protection against abuse of the Commerce Clause was provided us. Its status quo and just as vulnerable as before.

He wrote the majority opinion FOR THE COURT and it is entered in the record as such including the reasoning he put forth. The Majority Opinion always includes the reasoning which then becomes the precendent. They do not seperately poll the Justices and write an new interpretation, that is what the Majority Opinion is.

evlbruce
06-30-2012, 12:40
Not how it works as I understand it. Roberts wrote the majority opinion, with which 4 others concurred. There's no requirement that they initial each paragraph.

Since the rejection of the Commerce Clause is required to reach the published opinion, it is not mere dicta.

Roberts was only writing for himself when he wrote the rejection of the Commerce Clause.

Mark Levin's explanation: ('https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-levin/obamacare-the-commerce-clause-and-supreme-court-decision/10150883505015946')
But respecting Parts III- A [of the ruling], the commerce clause and necessary and proper section, Roberts is writing for himself, not for a majority.

Sam Spade
06-30-2012, 13:01
Roberts was only writing for himself when he wrote the rejection of the Commerce Clause.

Mark Levin's explanation: ('https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-levin/obamacare-the-commerce-clause-and-supreme-court-decision/10150883505015946')


Others see it differently:

"Thus, the only reason the Chief Justice even considers whether the mandate could be considered a tax, the statutory text notwithstanding, is because of his prior conclusion on the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses. Thus this decision provides five firm votes for meaningful limits on the most expansive of Congress’ powers."

http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/29/do-the-courts-commerce-clause-and-necessary-and-proper-clause-rulings-in-the-individual-mandate-case-matter/

That's from a couple of law professors: Ilya Somin and Jonathan Alder.

evlbruce
06-30-2012, 13:12
Others see it differently

Correct, Somin and Alder articles are torn apart in the comments section.

I admit I do not have the education and experience to make a pronouncement of Byzantine intricacies of court procedure. But it seems to me that the overwhelming opinion from those that do is that the status quo of the commerce clause stands.

Sam Spade
06-30-2012, 13:40
Correct, Somin and Alder articles are torn apart in the comments section.

I admit I do not have the education and experience to make a pronouncement of Byzantine intricacies of court procedure. But it seems to me that the overwhelming opinion from those that do is that the status quo of the commerce clause stands.

Are we reading the same comments? Serious question there; what I see at the link is hardly "torn apart".

G29Reload
06-30-2012, 13:50
Others see it differently:

"Thus, the only reason the Chief Justice even considers whether the mandate could be considered a tax, the statutory text notwithstanding, is because of his prior conclusion on the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses. Thus this decision provides five firm votes for meaningful limits on the most expansive of Congress’ powers."

Just because there are 5 votes on the court, it does not matter if they travel separately. The other 4 are in the dissent.

Roberts was writing for himself. The other 4 voting did neither concur on the section he wrote, nor Join. So, a Precedent was not set.

ITs arguable that he could be quoted at some point.




That's from a couple of law professors: Ilya Somin and Jonathan Alder.

If you mean Jonathan Alter, he's a political Left wing hack. OTher than that, never heard of these two.

steveksux
06-30-2012, 14:00
Randy -- that's certainly a valid viewpoint.

I'm starting to think that this entire country -- and certainly the government -- operates routinely on unintended consequences.


.Absolutely correct.. the alternative is unthinkable.... that they actually know what they're doing... :rofl:

They couldn't even put that in a movie, nobody'd believe it... :supergrin:

Keep in mind if they had any useful skills, they wouldn't have to resort to politics to make a living. If they didn't have good hair, they'd be resorting to crime.
Randy

Sam Spade
06-30-2012, 14:02
If you mean Jonathan Alter, he's a political Left wing hack. OTher than that, never heard of these two.

Typo--Jonathan Adler. He writes for the National Review.

steveksux
06-30-2012, 14:04
Even if Robert's part IS precedent, that's hardly set in stone. Lots of precedents get "clarified" or outright reversed in later decisions. It's got some value, no question, I'm not saying that's a moot point...

Have to admit I'm surprised the process is so murky that there's disagreement whether that IS precedent or not...

Randy