we're going to start with jim bopp. and, jim you can either sit there or come up here, whichever you would like. >> is this okay? all right. thank you. the consensus is, we'll sit. in my view, this case is the latest in the many chapters in the struggle over the proper role in the courts and our society. our constitution conceives of the judiciary of having a very limited role. that is, interpreting and supplying constitutional provisions and statutes to the facts of an individual case. state court judges have a similar role with respect to state law, an application of state constitutional provisions, and state statutes. to the facts of an individual case. however, state court judges also have a very robust role in developing the law. which federal judges do not have, since the decision in the '30s. the federal judges got out of the business of developing a federal common law. however, state judges in all but one of the states have a very robust role in developing that law, subject to legislative enactment. so even with