The concern I have with Roberts is and he's a conservative jurist, I get it on most business up. But when it comes to the big questions, he seems to be more of a, let's see if we can make this bad meal a little bit better by adding a milkshake to it or something because, you know, suddenly just needs to be scrapped and he seems to be more of one to put a band aid on. He thinks he's concerned about the legitimacy of the court, but so he thinks incremental staffs don't, you know, don't overturn presidents all at one time, but when there's a bad president, you know, wrongly decided, out of sync with the constitution, it is legitimate for the court to overturn it. And it's not certainly not stopping the attacks in the court when they go when they go Robert's way that doesn't certainly not sagging that he left this attack. So I don't think sometimes sometimes you have to, you know, it's the best thing in the long run just to rip the band aid off. Here's another panda analogy. Oh yeah. I wish that Roberts would focus more on the law. What does the law say? What does Congress roll with? What are those kind of things? Then again, and again, I'm being a little critical this morning I get it, but I mean, Roberts would have never, I don't think would have ever set up a judicial review. I mean, there's just so you go back to this, you know, from these big picture perspectives on how this actually works, but