 I get the point, I understand the point. You can predict how I'm gonna vote. Okay, therefore I have no free will. I mean that's what, you know, St. Augustine disproves that. But nonetheless, the point is that this, which you don't read in the paper, and you don't know. So I'll tell you things you might not know, you might know them, but you might not. We hear about 80 cases a year, we're unanimous in about 50. We only take cases, no, 40, probably half of them, 50%, little under 50%. We take cases almost exclusively on the basis that the lower courts have come to different conclusions on the same question of law. That's why we can have a case involving, was the comma in the tax code after a certain word, meaning the next word, which is four, should be read as a witch or a that. We had a case like that. I liked it. No one else did, but the case about Guantanamo, you say? Now, about 50%, little under, are you unanimous? The five fours that you read about are about 20%. And they're not the same five in four. So just out of curiosity, the year before Ninosculia Dodd, I went back and looked, and his vote, which is one vote, would have made a difference in four cases out of about 80. And last year, we came to four four, because we were four four most of the year, because there weren't, there was an appointment missing. So there were three, I think, maybe four, three or four, where it actually split like that. So I had sort of your question too. I thought, yeah, but why is it, I mean, what I see every day is I see judges trying to do their best in accordance with what they think the law demands. Now, of course, the word liberty doesn't explain itself, does it? I mean, at least not in cases that come up to us, nor does the word abridgment of the freedom of speech. Black is to say, no law means no law. Yeah, that's true, but the freedom of speech doesn't quite explain itself. So when you get to those big open cases, what is it? Well, it's been there 20 some odd years, as I said, and I do not think it is public opinion, zero. Politics? No, I taught for most of my career, but for a couple of years I worked for Senator Kennedy, which I loved, and on his staff, I was counsel of judiciary. And I think, politics is, where are the votes? Is it gonna be popular or not popular? Not popular, no, I don't see that. So you say, no, no, you say. I'm putting words in your mouth because I get this form of question very often. I say, it's ideology. That's what it is, ideology. You mean, am I a Marxist, you know, Adam Smith Free Enterprises or a Maoist troublemaker? I don't know, ideology. No, if I think I'm deciding a case, because it's good for people generally. Just generally good in some ideological sense. I know I've done the wrong thing. I can't say it never happens, but people try hard enough to do it. But I was born in San Francisco. I grew up in the 1950s. I went to Lowell High School, the state school. I've had the life I've had. I've had the upbringing I've had. And by the time you're well along in years, and you're in a profession, you have views. Not views that are too specific, but very general views. What's the law about? What's our country about? What's this document about? How does law relate to the people in it? Very general views, part of you. Out of your upbringing, out of your experience. And you can no more get rid of them and you can jump out of your own skin. Now, you say, does that affect decisions when they're open? Yeah, it does. And we hope that you can make predictions even they're somewhat true, because otherwise I'm being inconsistent with my basic values. And a judge who is inconsistent is a judge whom the public has no control over. Because the only control over the judge who is appointed for life is the control of reason. Is the control of law interpreted through reason. And if there isn't that reason, if you can't understand the explanation, if you can't understand and seeing how principles that are basically the same are being consistently applied, then there is no control. So what you have in what explains my puzzlement, which was quite similar to yours, is that probably with different presidents, different political groups will urge the appointment of a person who has certain basic views that those people in the political world think will lead to more decisions in their favor that they like. But the judge thinks he's doing it according to the law and the principles that he holds. And moreover, presidents are often and those political groups are often very surprised. Teddy Roosevelt appointed Oliver Wendell Holmes. Because he thought Oliver Wendell Holmes would be a secure vote for his view of antitrust within four months, Oliver Wendell Holmes had come out the other way. And Teddy Roosevelt said, I could appoint a judge with more backbone carved out of a banana. He was furious, he was furious. A president who thinks the judge is always gonna decide his way is really under some kind of cloud of delusion. A judge who thinks, a president who thinks that the judge will share certain basic values about America and the Constitution and the law. Yeah, he'll be closer. There too, he might be very wrong, as some have. As some have. And so there we are. That's the best I can explain it. And you see, it is not political in any sense that an ordinary person would ordinarily take as being political. You can't say quite never because of the role in which sort of basic ways of looking at things like law and life and the country and the nature of the government and so forth and all these things, some of which I talked about. Because those are in you. And you can't particularly, you can't get rid of them and you shouldn't get rid of them. And they're perhaps sometimes useful when you come to those very big basic questions. I hope that's helpful.