>>erysimp, bec t tho tnirtnse 'sl. >>nkoe my name's stephen richer, i'm with the washington legal foundation, and i'm also a disciple of ilyaha's,o 's ire toli a ot aha wle abatlo" i was wondering if you think the commerce clause language in this opinion is strong enough to stt looking at other past opinions and whether we can art inrerear ci b ee hataloer i'tnko at on t i t iis far and no farther. the other side wanted everything. that is, there are no lines. our position was as far as ng hondoth anhand h inthsat, t indotes t and we didn't get what wasn't actually at issue here. >> i will say one technical thing about that, that that ingirgti a ray ofig. ncncrtdit al teefus rulings that the preenlightenment court ruled uphold economic liberty and so forth. an inochth- uw,s llut ne atharoe but lockner was merely one of these bad cases that, unfortunately, that is an improvement. >> neil? yerighhe cl n. ratidy language you got. [laughter] as all of you know very well, our conservative friends have elevated theoncepts of