Say is kind of like the definition of selfishness. You've alluded to what next term looks like the fact that there's an abortion case. There's a gun rights case and you've publicly worried that even though the justices seem to be taking this brick by brick approach of plucking away rights as they go and sir kicking legs outta tables and watching them fall that they could come in next session and say screw it. Let's be legend. Yes which i loved when you said that But you really think that's going to happen given what you saw this term like that. I knew that there are people who are more moderate than you who were like mark you know this is not going to be that bad but is is the real fear screw it. Let's be legends. Or is it that they just take another brick or two away and we realized in ten years. What legends they were. well why not both There are a lot of rights out there that are very vulnerable at the supreme court. And something. I've tried to stress today. Is this matter of priorities. Of what is at the very top of the list for the conservative justices. And what can wait for a few terms or a few more years. And i think that by taking up this pair of cases the the challenge to roe v wade and the challenge to limits on concealed carry. The conservative justices have revealed to priorities. They really want to overturn roe. And they really want to establish a constitutional right to concealed. Carry and expand the scope of the second amendment. I don't see any other explanation for those moves because remember this time. Last year the supreme court had just turned away a bunch of very similar cases. The gordon turned away. Abortion cases at a turned away gun cases. It had said we're not dealing with these. It's not our priority. And there was great reporting by joan biskupic that revealed the reason why it was because the chief justice more or less said i will not go with you like i will not walk with you down this road to the rest of the conservatives. He said i am not ready for this. This is not what i want yet. Yes this is. Not what i want yet. But now the chief justice has been sidelined and it only takes four votes for the supreme court to hear a case just four and so last year cavanagh gorsuch alito. Thomas did not all vote to take up all those big cases because they knew robert's would not go with them would not walk with them down that road to be the fifth. Vote to actually do what they wanted. Case came to them exactly and this year. Something changed what changed. Rpg was replaced with amy barrett. And so those four votes. That weren't there last year because they were afraid of john. Roberts they suddenly materialized. Because there's no longer a reason to fear. John roberts because barrett is here and there are five ultra conservative votes for these priorities. Well there's another way to see that. Which is that. There are four votes to take the case. There may not be five votes. To rule the way the ultra conservatives want to rule that is a plausible theory but it rests on the four ultra conservatives. Being really naive or ignorant or tactless because again this time last year they said that fifth though isn't here so we're not gonna take up these cases and now they've decided the fifth is here. Do we think that they mis-read someone. Do we think that they're calling it wrong. I don't know i don't know the answer. Maybe yes maybe. We'll be pleasantly surprised next year but it seems to me that if there were four votes to take up these hugely contentious cases then there had to have been some summit behind the scenes there had to have been some conversation where five justices all agreed that they would go the same way on these cases that they would not take this risk without making sure that there was a solid majority to do the work here and to issue that conservative decision that republicans have been dreaming up for decades. Marcus stern thank you so much for joining me. Always a pleasure. Thanks so much. Mark does of stern reports on courts and the law for slate. You can get him and dolly ludwig on the latest episode of slates amicus podcast. They will dive even deeper into all things. Supreme court go. Check it out all right. That's the show. What next is produced by mary. Wilson carmel dilshad davis land linda shorts and daniel hewitt we are led by allison benedict unleashing montgomery and mary harris. You can go track me down on twitter amount. Mary's desk thanks for listening. I'll get you back here tomorrow..