we can't both do meed and do aur deference to ameekcuss briefs. that's bad for meed. we know that the court is committed to aur deference in ameecuss briefs. we had two votes to that effect. so what happens to meed in that world? the chase banks opinion by justice sotamayer dealt with meed in the following int resting way. it said semi-simply nothing about it. so there's not one word about made in the opinion. i think that's bad formade. if you purport to be the general frame work for judicial review of agency action and people aren't talking about you or at least sometimes not talking about you, that's not a good thing. the second ominous feature of all this was justice kagen said at oral argument, well, maybe aur and meed are inconsistent but we're not so sure we've got it right in meed anyway. i'm not so sure who the we is in that statement but if it includes justice kagen, that could be a major reinforcement for the critics of meed on the court. finally, of the original 8-1 majority in meed only four remain. that is kennedy, thomas, ginsburg and breyer. sca lease