the ability of minority preferred candidates and they also overturned a case which i argued, gold bolger two, which says he can look at discriminatory purpose, p would seem to me perfectly rational for the court so say even if you justify unamended section 5 in 2006, surely you've got to provide some additional justification for ratcheting up the burdens on the covered jurisdictions and you haven't been able to do that as part of your justification effort, regardless of whether this particular district is going to face those issues. >> stewart, let me just say one more thing on that. the way it was amended if 2006, it invited the justice department to go return to what i think were appalling patterns of calling anything and everything that it did not like in the way of districts, intentional discrimination and it never had to give any reasons and of course, suspected intentional discrimination does. you don't have to actually have any evidence. i mean, one of the things i would like to see is in cases of where there is intentional discrimination, use the amendment, but in the way the --