so there are five justices and it would fall to justice thomas. in that circumstance with a concern to have such a drive and to frame it like a second amendment case of religious liberty. >> no one wants to touch that so i will. [laughter] i think the abortion case is a little tricky for obvious reasons. the others are not. just because there is a sense that this is the public versus the court type of thing. they are all very sensitive to criticism. who knows. i think all mine are acutely aware for better or worse and with the abortion case and not the other cases. clearly they will have an interesting conference. >> do you think that is a lightning rod even more than the second amendment that justice thomas is writing the majority and second amendment? >> why not quick. >> that is a very distinct possibility he would be assigned to the majority in the second amendment even if the chief were in it just like they assigned to scalia the majority in the heller case. there is a way to decide that case and paul can speak to it better than i can but the

chief justice roberts: justice breyer? justice alito? no? justice sotomayor? justice sotomayor: counsel, under the turner standard, a generalized security interest would have been enough to defeat a claim. rluipa changed that, and whether we like it or not, it requires the state to address each individual person's need. and a risk analysis that talks generally about a compelling new is -- need is not the standard that rluipa sets. the standard is, is something that you're proposing going to interfere with this execution? now i looked at the pictures that i was provided, and the other side gave a bunch of reasons. they said it'll block the view. but i saw the picture of the prison, and the window at least by the foot doesn't block the view. so where you want to stand is not going to block the view. they have fears that a unknown pastor could -- and this goes to justice kavanaugh's concern -- that an unknown pastor could go to the iv line, could go to the manacles, et cetera. but the manacles are nowhere near there. the minister has a person standing with him. i

justice thomas had justice scalia. will brett kavanaugh be like justice thomas? is neil gorsuch going to be like justice thomas and justice scalia? i think that is the most significant influence they've had. >> something about these issues, i want to go back to the pressing question for you. his limitation on where the president doesn't doesn't go in is demonstrably wrong. i hear echoes of chevron. what if the historical record is ambiguous or there is conflicting evidence? what do you do then? that is the more interesting thing of dealing with the precedent that you are not going to put your foot down and say it's really wrong. maybe there is a palpable argument one way or the other. and what he tried to do is steer it back as best he could to something closer to what the right answer was, even if it wasn't the definitive absolute answer. that was equally good methodology for dealing with those spaces in between. get back to the logic in the sense of the overall structure even if you can't say for sure. >> the alternative is the supreme court's current doctrine

>> justice breyer is a good man.ce gorsuch and law clerks including me when we joined the courts. he has shown independence as a justice, he has been very outspoken about the democrats pushing to pack the supreme court. justice has come out and said it's a bad idea. there's no way demand justice or the left wing groups forced him off the bench. i would note it is surprising that the white house, the biden white house let this announcement leak and they let it get out there before justice breyer had the chance to make the announcement. i think it was bad form, very bad form. >> sandra: do you know that to be the case, mike? >> well, he has not put out a statement yet, you have to wonder where the leak came from. it would not have come from the supreme court. >> trace: and president biden earlier said justice breyer has not made the statement. let's let him make the statement before we make the statement. a lot of people are making statements, including dick durbin says he will move biden's nominee expeditiously throug

beginning with justice rehnquist elevation the chief justice which as we know was coupled with justice scalia's confirmation. not a bad start. and now and again consistent with his focus on the long game. the recent confirmation of every more recent confirmation of every current member of our supreme court his role in the three most recent confirmations as well known. but for him those would not have happened. his courage has been unmatched after the untimely death of justice scalia. our keynote speakers said no to a hasty confirmation. it is too close to an election that will elect a new president. then after the 2016 election, he led the senate through not only the confirmation from neil gorsuch and later brett kavanaugh and amy barrett. but ensured a record number of judicial confirmations including to our critical federal courts of appeal. 30 years ago clarence thomas became a member of the supreme court our keynote speaker voted invade in favor of that confirmation. just as higher young law clerks and justice thomas is known to look for certain qualities in those clerks. a very lo

justice thomas writes -- justice scalia does not join.there were many other times were justice kalina or justice thomas was separate and might have joint. here, justice scalia does not join. it is essentially a critique of the substantial effect notion that anything that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce is regular ball under article -- is under article 1, section 8. congress may only regulate commerce among several states, but also anything that has a substantial effect. if taken to its logical extreme, this would give congress a police power over all aspects of american life. that is a theme he has returned to again and again and he returns to in his shorter, separate dissent. he is expressing this concern that if we read the commerce clause power so broadly, and the court has read it since the new deal cases, according to justice thomas, it would give the federal government unlimited power. right away, he is staking out this structural concern about the balance of powers between the federal government and the state govern

justice breyer said the implementation of term limits for justice would make life easier. democratic lawmakers are pushing the 83-year-old to step down during an appearance on fox news this is back in the fall breyer expressed an openness term limits but warms and he should be set up for a very long term . on the issue of term limits the presidential commission found this, came to this conclusion that the united states is the only major constitutional democracy in the world that has neither a retirement age nor a fixed term limit for its high court. currently the number of appointments available to a resident can vary greatly. voters of components of term limits argue the appointment process would address the arbitrary consequences of life tenure by making judicial appointments more predictable. the composition of the supreme court more rationally related to the outcome of democratic jelections over time. this standard 18 year terms would ensure all presidents have the opportunity to appoint two justices to the supreme court in each term they serve. let's get your thoughts

she's a justice there.he was appointed, i think in 2014, so she served for about eight years out there. but she has strong washington connections that might help her in this selection here. she used to work in the solicitor general's office. she was in the obama administration. she has plenty of supporters out here. also a former supreme court law clerk like judge jackson. she work forward john paul stevens. and someone important to mention because of the politics of the moment, judge michelle childs who is, right now, in a south carolina trial court and has been nominated to the prominent d.c. circuit. most important there, john, james claiborne, the house whip and big supporter of joe biden is really backing her. >> we'll watch the fascinating process play out. let's talk about the departing justice, justice breyer. you had an interview with him last year. all the justices say this but justice breyer says it here, a very succinctly. he says he's troubled about the recent conversations that the court is es

justice breyer or justice kagan, what they do best is to marginally modify, so now reach some of the justices to the right but to the extent that happen, they have certain cases, other cases that turned out to be more narrowly focused than we might have expected and i can't hear and prove, that they inserted some kind of influence than the others but they see that as a goal. sotomayor has given up on that goal and has a different goal and that is to tell the truth to the american public as she sees it about the failure of the majority and make a record because none of us will be here forever but history will be about the supreme court of this era and the executions the trump administration carry out in its last 7 months which is just astonishing, if the court did not stop any of them. she at the end of a for the last execution, kind of a black lives matter, she needed to make that record and it justice ginsburg was with her on those moments and we've got to watch her and listen to her. >> host: we will talk about justice breyer but i was struck by your scrutiny of justice course such

get done so in a way, he and justice alito control the chief justice i think and tease him and don'tm much respect and i think it's because they are inpatient, they don't want to miss an opportunity to go as far as possible to go is what i think. >> do you think justice thomas is now in some ways in the right place at the right time or do you see him as having market-driven the agenda among these nine? >> well, i think hisic influence -- i've never viewed him as particularly inside the court, i think he's very influential outside the court. he's had more than 100 law clerks and it's astonishing how many of them during the trump years ended up on the federal courts or other significant opinions including now the recently appointed general state of mississippi was taken over the litigation and abortion case of former thomas clerk, justice thomas has a way of identifying issues signaling to the base and he does speak to a base and incredibly loyal attentive space outside the court of what kinds of issues should be litigated in the pipeline and brought up to the court so i think he has i

that looks like justice has been done. we would say we want to live in a just society where justice is possible for all. what's the human story behind the word justice? looking deeper, we might see the justices more than a principal on which we hope to act, deeper than discerning wrong on the side on right on that side and leaving it at that. involving a human relationship. when the injustice has been done a human relationship has been wounded, damaged. the relationship needs healing. today we will talk with the director of archdiocese and ministry called, restorative justice. as his mission statement says, we provide people affected by crime victims and offenders within our communities support to heal. prayer, prevention, intervention, guidance. stay with us, after this brief break, we will learn about the meaning of restorative justice, and what the archdiocese is doing to teach and practice it. >>> welcome to "mosaic" . let me introduce my colleague julio escobar. he is titled director of the office of restorative justi

also, because of what happened with justice ginsburg, justice ruth bader ginsburg, who democrats wanted to retire when obama was president and she did not. ultimately, she died during the trump administration, allowing president donald trump to replace her. that helped make the court a 6-3 majority. democratics wanted breyer seat to go to a demo credit appointee. -- breyer seat to go to a democratic appointee. host: what type of justice do you think the president will be looking for? guest: the president is a little constrained by his own campaign promise to appoint a black woman to the court. the number of eligible candidates is smaller, as a result. especially if he is looking for people who are already serving on the federal court. which is usually where presidents look. that is one issue. within the democrat party, the aspect of the moderates and the more left people. there will be some tension there as to what parts of the democratic party want. as with other biden judicial nominations so far, the democratic party has kept together in pushing through his judges -- senate democratic

nbc news is reporting that justice breyer is

justice breyer's plans retirement.ing a judge to the supreme court is one of the most consequential appointments the president can make. >> paula, what do we know about president biden's potential picks to replace justice breyer? >> well, on the campaign trial, biden vowed to nominate a black woman and we have seen the pressure breyer has been under for a while now to step down while democrats still hold the majority in congress. a list of well qualified, potential nominees has really crystallized during this breyer retirement watch. let's take a look at who made the short list. a coveted seat on the highest court in the land will soon come open as justice stephen breyer has announced his plan to retire. the question now, who will president biden pick to replace him? >> my first choice will make history as the first african american woman justice. >> a supreme court pick can be the president's most lasting legacy. justices can serve for decades. their decisions last for generations. former president trump solidified a

justice kavanaugh: justice kavanaugh: do you justice kavanaugh: think the agency could do this under its general power? mr. keller: i do not think the agency could do an economy wide vaccine or testing mandate across the economy. it has never done that through its regular power and did not in june. health care workers, the most heightened, high-risk workplace. justice barrett: i want to return to your discussion earlier about whether the vaccine or test requirement addresses -- is necessary to address a great danger in the workplace. you would be hard-pressed to contest the chief point there are some workplaces in which the danger to employees is different than that they face in the world, a meatpacking plant or the dentist. i think what you're saying it -- i think this is what you're saying and want to be sure i understand and am correct. i think what you're saying is even if there are some industries or some people who would face a great risk, and this may be necessary to address that, so if osha adopted untargeted rule, you might not contest that. the problem here is scope and the

whoever replaces justice biden -- justice breyer might be more progressive. it rests with kavanaugh and amy coney barrett that will not change. >> it will not change the court balance. might it change because now you have this high-profile first resignation and retirement and then a nominee and a confirmation process. it will put front and center many of the giant issues in american law right now, many of the giant issues this court will be considering this term, chief among them in my view, the texas anti-abortion law. >> not just texas, john, but, of course, the mississippi law as well the court is hearing in dobbs, whether or not the court will overturn roe v. wade. that's an important point f. we assume the confirmation hearings will take place over the summer, that the idea would be to have a successor in place when the court comes back in the fall. this will be on the far side of whatever the supreme court does with regard to abortion, to second amendment rights, with regard to the administrative state, with regard to religious liberty. it's impossible

justice. justice breyer: thank you, thank you, mr. president. that is terribly nice.elieve me, it's wonderful. i thought about what i might say to you. and something i enjoy is talking to high school students, grammar school students, college students. even law school students. and they will come around and ask me, what is it you find particularly meaningful about your job? what sort of gives you a thrill? and that is not such a tough question for me to answer. it's the same thing. day one, almost. up to today, i don't know how many. what i say is, i sit there on the bench. and after we hear lots of cases, after a while, the impression -- it takes a while. i have to admit. but the impression you get, as you all know, this is a complicated country. there are more than 330 million people. my mother used say, it is every race, every religion, and she would empathize this. and it is every point of view possible. and it is a kind of miracle, when you sit and see all those people in front of you. people that are so different in what they think. and yet, they have decided to

robin landhart former law clerk of justice breyer.nks so much you worked so closely with him what was his impact on this court in your estimation >> i think for this court, the impact the justice has had has been tremendous. first of all, he's had many important decisions across the time of his time at the court. but beyond that, i think behind the scenes what people can't see is the role that the justice plays in connecting with his fellow justices, trying to work through problems, trying to get to consensus on issues i know recently there have been a lot of discussion about the justices and difficulties that they may be having i know justice breyer, his whole -- his entire period at the court has been about trying to come to consensus and move forward in a positive way. >> in a 2001 interview, you said his legacy will be trying to bring people on the court together across all perspectives and across all politics. did he continue to accomplish that even when our situation got a lot more polarized >> i think that he certainly continue

i will point out, justice kennedy and justice scalia don't get a vote on the current court anymore. but he did persuade the two of them through the power of his ideas, that buckley should be overruled. we have been talking today a little bit about differences between justice scalia and justice thomas. scalia previously defended buckley and said it doesn't need to be overruled because nothing is wrong with it. justice thomas explained why it is not the case. eventually all three of them were signing off to justice thomas' opinion about how buckley should be overruled. they're not on the current court. but the power of his ideas and his consistency over time has really been, in these two areas, persuading is colleagues. there's one topic that might have some -- >> that's exactly where i was going to head. you alluded to the fact there are many wins with religion. what i thought i would do is actually to kind of orient us to the people that don't know about his views on partial incorporation of the religion clauses. which are unique. then maybe hit the highlight reel on the wins, which

so, even if the successor justice to justice breyer is not offering for majority. it may take a while to get to the point where there's a majority with a more progressive world view. but we need to think of the work of the court for the next generation. yesterday's descent can be the next generation' majority opinion. i think whoever this person is needs to be thut of that way. using the seat for a moderate voigs might be a mistake. it might be a time to go for a progressive voice. you have to get the person confirmed in the senate. that will require the support of joe manchin and sinema. they may only approve someone who's a more moderate voice. i know we've been talking about people who are judges and perhaps somebody working for public service, interest. might be that more progressive voice. >> i would not rule out getting some republican votes for the right nominee as well. could bow a progressive person. but i would not assume this has to just be a democrat. because in years past, of course, these -- aside from clarence thomas, these were not such closely foug

in the justice department this is 30 minutes. [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] good afternoon. it is nice to see some of you here in the great hall and to be able to connect with all of you virtually today. my first day as attorney general i spoke with all of you more than 115,000 employees of the department of justice for the first time. today i've brought us all together again for two reasons. first and foremost, to thank you. thank you for the work you yhave done. not just over the last ten months over the past several years. work that you have done in the face of unprecedented challenges ranging from an unprecedented deadly pandemic to an unprecedented attack on our democracy. thank you for your service, for your sacrifice, for your dedication. i am honored to serveal alongside you. and second, as we begin a new year end prepared to mark a solemn anniversary tomorrow, it is a fitting time to reaffirm that we, at the department of justice, will do everything in our power to defend the american people

a clerk to supreme court justice goldberg, a prosecutor in the department of justice, a member of the watergate prosecution team. i first met stephen breyer as a senator on the judiciary committee. he started off taking care of one of the subcommittees for teddy. then he became chief counsel during his tenure as ted's chairmanship of the judiciary committee. beyond his intellect and hard work and legal insight he was famous for biking across washington virtually every day for face-to-face meetings with the republican chief counsel, the ranking republican counsel. over breakfast they discussed what they would do for the country together. in those days we tried to do things together. that spirit stuck with me when it took over the judiciary committee as chair after senator kennedy's tenure. it was my honor to vote to confirm justice breyer to serve in the u.s. supreme court -- court of appeals first in 1980. 14 years later, 1994, i got to preside as chairman of the judiciary committee over the supreme court confirmation hearings. we were joking with another, did he ever think he would s

justice thomas: no questions. chief justice roberts: justice breyer? justice alito? justice sotomayor? justice gorsuch? thank you very much. rebuttal, mr. kretzer. kretzer: yes, mr. chief justice. i think perhaps one of the most alarming things that my friend general stone said in his argument was that the tdcj now has the affirmative power under their logic to front-run, impede, cut off, whatever you want to call it, the ability to file a 1983 case by their delay of the level 2 exhaustion. the three most catalytic pages of this entire record and the lodged materials, 11, 12, and 13, it's also at page 53 of the joint appendix, and this is where mr. ramirez filed -- this was in june that he said the "and pray over me" language, it was denied in boilerplate on the august 19 -- 16 denial -- july 2. this is on page 13 -- has the exact same language. someone literally just took the same typewriter and put the exact same thing and stamped there on august 16. it sat there for six weeks. this page 13 appears in the lodged grievance file. it's not in the joint appendix becaus

they overruled austin and cited justice thomas' reasoning and the reasoning of other justices who hadalong on the way. i think another important case in this line of reasoning is mccutcheon from 2014 where the court decided to consider afresh aggregate limits on campaign contributions. so there's safe limits, what you can give to an individual candidate, and there's aggregate, what you can give overall. and in buckley the court had upheld both of those. and in mccutcheon the court said, you know, buckley -- a lot has changed since buckley in the legislative realm, and buckley only gave a few, you know, sentences to considering aggregate limits that were going to consider afresh. and i think you see in that opinion the court acknowledging the persuasiveness of justice thomas' reasoning about some of the rationale underlying buckley. he points out in his dissent that there's. basically -- there's kind of one rationale for buckley left that a he thinks the court has even given that one up. but i think that's another example where the justice -- justice thomas' persistent drum beat over d

justice stephen breyer plans to retire. this is according to a well-placed source familiar with the matter and breyer's departure will give president biden a chance to nominate a successor. jessica schneider joins us with more reporting. i know you've been working your sources. what have you learned? >> reporter: this announcement is coming quite early. there are still five months left in the supreme court's term. most justices that have announced their retirement in the past haven't done so until at least march. the 83-year-old justice has said in the past he would consider two things when deciding to leave, his health and the court w. no known health issue it is clear the court is his main reason for leaving after almost three decades on the court. he has spoken extensively over the past year and has even written a book. he expressed concern that the public views the court as political and talks about how that perception could erode faith in the court. justice breyer does come from a political background himself. he was t

justice blackman was another. they decided, once with an eye towards consistency weighed on their consciences, and they came to conclude the death penalty truly needed to be questioned under our constitutional values. justice breyer recognized that our system of justice, purmt must not only be firm but fair. during his 28 years on the court, stephen breyer has been a stalwart defender of america's constitutional rights. as i mentioned years before he was confirmed to the supreme court, justice breyer sat on the court of appeals for the first circuit located in boston. today on the banks of the boston harbor stands a building that reflects his lifetime service, the john mokely courthouse, i knew him. judge breyer helped design the courthouse and still has an office there. it has a curved glass wall so passersby can peer into the courthouse during the day. it's designed to provide a clear view into the administration of justice. engraved on the wall of the building are the names of the workers who had a hand in buil

and as you know, as it turned out, johnson appointed a justice to become chief justice. that became that conformation that was clouded and finally ports pulled that out and it had a lot of res innocence because finally earl warren served almost a year before earl warren burger was appointed by president nixon. >> we're seeing right now, with a two-minute warning from the white house that the president and perhaps justice breyer's remarks are being put on the podium. this is across from the cabinet room, the room where there are so many important meetings, staff meetings as well. want to draw your attention, michael also, to a really resinant lead editorial by former correspondent. now at yale, i believe. and she writes with the headline -- the right justice for the wrong age. her point is his belief in facts and evidence and expertise were out of step in a post-factual age. an enlightenment man not in an enlightenment age. i covered stephen breyer since he was first nominate in 1994. you've studied him for decades, you know him well. talk about the man, stephen breyer. a

justices set sonya's hot. so tomorrow ruth bader ginsburg, sandra day o'connor antonio have all taken part in memorable smithsonian associates events. and justice breyer joined that esteemed list in 2016, and we are honored to invite him back. justice breyer as you probably know has a long history as a legal educator. and a continuing affiliation with harvard university in fact the book that he will discuss tonight the authority of the court and the peril of politics. had its beginning in august 2021 at a presentation for the harvard law schools scalia lectured series. an educators voice is present throughout the book as he talks about the importance of judicial power. the rule of law and the role that the judiciary plays in the american body policy. for example, he talks about the landmark case of the 1954 brown versus board of education decision and then amplifies that through the discussion of cooper v aaron which came three years later which reiterated that decision. we are happy to see that he takes on th

justice stephen breyer, set to retire. president biden's first chance to nominate a justice to the high court. the 83-year-old justice breyer, the most senior member of the liberal wing. tonight, president biden, what he said today about justice breyer and what comes next. the president campaigning on a promise to nominate a black woman to the supreme court. tonight, the short list right here. and how quickly will the senate move? what we're learning already. terry moran at the supreme court. mary bruce at the white house. rachel scott on the hill. >>> also tonight, what could be a dangerous nor'easter. this evening, the two now models just in. the two possible tracks and how much snow is possible? from philadelphia up through new york city and into new england. rob marciano timing it all out. >>> tonight, moderna now saying human trials of its omicron-specific booster are now under way, following the news from pfizer on this, as well. tonight, dr. fauci on whether this will be needed. and how soon before a universal vacci

justice kavanaugh? >> i want to be clear about what you're arguing and not arguing and to be clear, you're not arguing that the court somehow has the authority to itself prohibit abortion or that this court has the authority to order the states to prohibit abortion? so i understand it. correct? >> correct your honor. >> you're arguing that the constitution is silent and therefore neutral on the question of abortion, in other words that constitution is neither pro life nor pro choice on the question of abortion but leaves the issue for the people of the states or, perhaps, congress to resolve in the democratic process? is that accurate? >> we're saying it's left to the people, your honor. >> for the -- if you were to prevail, the states, majority of states or states still could or -- and presumably would, continue to freely allow abortion, many states some states would be able to do that, even if you prevail under your view? >> that's consistent with our view. it's one that allows all interests to have f

quote, if heie hadn't been a justice, hollywood might have made him up. deeplyma intellectual, fluent i not just law but also philosophy, art and culture. he's also absent minded. geeky. self deprecatingly funny. physically fit. but so preoccupied that he three timesed suffered serious injuri whenti knocked from his bicycle. in f 1993, mr. breyer was a finalist to fill a supreme court vacancy and about to come to washington with then-president bill litten and knocked off his bike by a car. and with punctured lungs and the interview did not go particularly well. clinton chose ruth bader ginsburg instead. but a year latercl when a secon vasionbu sy occurred upon the retirement of justice harry blackmun, it was breyer who got the nod. in many respects his monuments were not so much the decisions that he authored as the decisions that he influenced behind the scene, the justice pushedne and prodded his fellow justice for consensus on everything from obama care to affirmative action in higher education. t joining us now is nina totenberg, legal affairs corresp

. >>> the supreme court justice with bay area ties plans to step down. we look at the red for president biden to fill his seat. >>> is there anybody saying in california anymore? >> challenges to san jose's new law requiring liability insurance for gun owners and how the city defends its decision. >>> the fed announces plans to raise interest rates soon to handle inflation and the possible fallout for consumers. good afternoon. >>> one of the longest-serving members of the supreme court is about to step down. skyler henry is live with the retirement of justice stephen bryer. >> reporter: one thing that is abundantly clear is that democrats plan to move quickly in terms of the nomination and confirmation process given when the president chooses to find a replacement for him, as he says he plan on retiring. but the white house said they are not announcing anything yet and waiting for an official announcement from the long-term justice. >> reporter: justice stephen bryer, the oldest member of the supreme court, will retire at the end of the court's current

chief justice roberts: justice thomas, justice breyer? justice breyer: the use provision requires the government to give notice it is going to use the information. and that makes sense when the government wants to introduce it at trial so it gives notice it's going to use it at trial and that allows the other party to move to suppress the evidence. but what sense does it make to require prior notice when what the government is going to do is to invoke the state secrets privilege? you just invoked the states secret privilege where you send a notice to say we intend to invoke the state secrets privilege and now we invoke the states secret privilege, make sense? >> in this case it does and served the useful function and they served a motion and we said as a preliminary matter before even briefing it, we tried to make some of these totten versus reynolds kinds of arguments to the district court and we said don't even look at the information, first decide as a threshold matter whether or not the state secrets doctrine can apply here and may be

justice thomas? justice breyer? justice alito? justice sotomayor? >> i just wanted to get your quick sense of how your intermediate positions would work, if basically the viability line was discarded and undue burden became the standard overall, a standard that according to you is an unclear one, what that would leave the court with going forward. you know, i'm just sort of thinking about the great variety of regulations that states could pass, so whether one is 15 weeks, one is 12 weeks, one is nine weeks, variation across a wide variety of other dimensions, what would that look like coming to the court? how would we -- how do you think we would be able to deal with that or how would you counsel us to deal with that if the court were to go down that road? >> well, i think -- this is not to push back against it, and i will answer your question, part of why we counseled to overrule full scale that's the only way to get rid of a number of problems your honor is alluding to. and that's when you have the undue burden standard, it's a very hard standard