and then justice kagen saying well, why do you need congress when it's a right? through that. >> so this is i think the most important exchange that we heard this morning, and it underlines the fact that this argument is not about substantive abortion rights. it's actually about the rule of law, and it goes to bedrock principles of our system which give courts the right to review laws and the argument is about whether this is a law that can be reviewed, and if so, by which court and how. justice kavanaugh is a pivotal vote as ken pointed out. from this morning's questioning, there seems to be good reason to speculate that both justices avenue gnaw and barrett known opponents of abortion, nonetheless, might take a very narrow view of the propriety of the texas statute and find because it is an intentional scheme designed to buy late this principle of judicial review, and, of course, as you point out, this expansion that this same scheme could be used, for instance, for religious rights or for gun rights that they might join the folks on the court who would block t