 You talked a little bit about the health care case earlier, but I wonder how you feel You know There have been sort of two lines on this from the left. One is that this is a very easy case It's really a slam dunk all the doctrine is lining up in one way not to mention the prudential Pragmatic post neuro Thomas Jefferson argument for having a national market for health care and individual mandate And yet we have this challenge with this enormous amount of time being spent on argument next week and some Fear that this case could be politicized in a way that would create the kind of damning five-four split That I think pretty much no one would really be that happy about and I wonder you know whether you think that the outcome of that case Will say a lot about the resilience of the Constitution It's unusual to have a signature piece of legislation from the standing president before the court in an election year the Obama administration kind of further amped up the drama by Removing the argument and someone will argue this but the government is no longer arguing that it's possible for the court to just punt on this case under 19th century law called the anti-injunction act So we have very high stakes and I wonder whether you feel like the outcome of this case Could either be very affirming for the resilience of the Constitution or could really do damage or whether we in the end We'll see this as only one moment in this longer tapestry I think probably the latter in the following sense because that this the case really is is quite important but And I would I would think that a decision to strike down the any part of the Affordable Care Act would be doctrinally and Constitutionally and politically a disaster a terrible move In fact the question I think is going to be whether this court is willing to look at questions like Alito the way Alito did in US versus Jones looking forward as Judge Kavanaugh said in his separate opinion looking forward this tool of using a market-based solution to a Economic problem is something that can be used in ways that we you know It's not a liberal idea or a conservative idea. It's something. It's a tool that government can have at this disposal Do we want to cut that off now without any knowledge of what the consequences of that would be? because we don't think that that you know Millard Fillmore would have would have proposed this bill Or do we want to try to go for an immediate? halt in change and Historically the court has fallen prey to this immediate halt idea far too often and The test for the Constitution is not whether the court does it but what the response is from the country from the country, right? because The Constitution is resilient enough to work around these things. Sometimes it once it took a civil war that is bad I don't think that will happen over the affordable right. Yeah, sometimes it takes a constitutional amendment Sometimes it takes the New Deal crisis But but usually we go on that doesn't mean there aren't high stakes in terms of the immediate consequences But I don't think it and in and of itself is going to tell us what the health of our Constitution is It'll tell us a lot about the Supreme Court But historically the Supreme Court has not really ever been a particularly faithful steward of the Constitution That has to be done by all of us