i once asked bob borick whether a judge who was elected should feel freer to make policy.just in common law, but freer to make policy through constitutional law or statutory interpretation in a way consistent with the judge's own policy preferences. and bob borick gave, in a sort of classic forum, what i thought at the time was a rather flippant answer. he said why would the taxpayers pay for that twice. [ laughter ] by the time i got home, i decided that was a pretty good answer. it struck me as a little odd at the time but it was if anything, a fiscal conservative answer. fourth and finally, on overbreadth, not enough, i want to say that the only person who filed a brief in this case who actually said, i think the following would be constitutional, was jim bob. most of the other amicus lift these up as sort of tantalizing possibilities. what if a mass letter went to only 50 people? what if is what they usually say. but jim bob said, solicitation in the courthouse can be prohibited consistent with the first amendment. and -- now that draws the line a little farther over t