he like michael newdow was totally passionate about the facts and the background of the case, but, it was -- just fell flat, too passionate. and makes another point about the supreme court. many cases when they get to the supreme court are on much more abstract levels than the at the trial court and the other, lower court levels, and in the trial court, the issue is the facts, you know, did the police officer do this or not? but, when you are -- when you get to the supreme court, the facts seem often fade into the background and the court is really just concerned about a legal issue, a constitutional issue. and that is what this lawyer forgot. the case briefly, to summarize, called gooden versus wildman brothers. and, it is a first amendment case, and the first amendment protects the freedom of the speech, but, also, has been found to protect in some instances the right not to speak but the right not to have the government force you to say something you don't agree with. and in the case, it was a group of california fruit farmers, producers of vegetables and fruit, in california, who