Is that the undue burden standard in casey fails to meet a level of work ability. That would justify it. So it's not entitled to sterry decisison and to the protection of prior precedent these arguments. I mean i'm just going to say it for what it is. They are nonsense. They are oppositional to our rule of law principles that we operate under they are oppositional to the way the courts work and they are dangerous. You know as you point out and we almost do it in joking. It could be used to reverse brown versus board of education but there is no policy decision that conservatives don't like that they couldn't use the same sort of argument to undo. We could see one hundred years of progress in this country. Eradicated on the basis of this sort of cheap argumentation. So joyce can i ask you another legal question. And i'm asking you in part in your capacity as the former chief of appeals in your us attorney's office so that's a very sort of high position and you have thought about legal strategy and not just in trial. Not just in hearings not just in witness prep. But also how you make an argument to the court particularly. We're trying to get the court to overrule a prior decision. Usually it's the case. I would guess that you would say look. We know we're asking the court to do a lot. We know these presidents have been in place for a long time but for lots of reasons including the continuing debate including defense of science which they say in this case. You should do the thing that is ordinarily difficult to do. And we don't ask lightly for you to do this right. That's kind of the. Tony would take here. Mississippi and the brief basically says this is easy. This is not a hard question at all. Here's another sense. From the brief quote. Overruling roe. In casey makes resolution of this case straightforward. And they're saying once you do the hard thing then obviously the resolution of the case is easy but they keep using plain and flat language like straightforward and easy and clear that tone and tactical choice. Make sense to you. Maybe make sense in the current world said. There's a difference between mississippi's attorney general and the appellate chief in a us attorney's officer the solicitor general on doubts that the mississippi attorney general will be running for re election soon and presumably. This brief is written in tone intended to curry favor with voters. And that you're saying joyce this is a political brief it is not meant to have maximum legal force. I think actually it's meant to do both and part of what's troubling about this brief is that it does make the assumption that there are six or at least five votes on the supreme court. So they don't have to be careful about their tone in sort of lured the justices into voting for them by giving them a rationale. They seem to assume as you read this brief that their win as a fait accompli. It's interesting because there's a case it's probably three years old now in eleventh circuit case authored by the then chief judge at kearns. It's a similar abortion case out of What was then an abortion facility. In west alabama in the tuscaloosa area and judge kearns starts with a graphic vivid one might say overblown description of an abortion procedure and then says that the only reason that he asked to vote to affirm the abortion clinics ability to continue to operate is because of bad. Supreme court precedent. Now that was a case that was clearly not written with a goal of having the supreme court reverse because given the composition of the court. Then they knew that their case would not go anywhere..