lot ofestion typifies a supreme court argument, which is they are the -- the justices are readg to say, okay, i've your brief, but how far does the logic of your position extend to? they come up with hypotheticals, like, okay, it's 50 16 out of 50 seats, it's out of 50 seats. does your argument still hold? why not? what are the logical limits to your position? that's really what the art of supreme court advocacy is all about. >> and cox was reading that speech. i know that, because at some skipped a line and it threw him off and he had to go back. >> here is a bit of the other five. ronald coleman was a san francisco attorney who argued on behalf of allan bakke. the only case that he argued before the supreme court. let's listen. >> so part of your submission is, even if things are compelling interest, even if alternative, use of the racial classification is unconstitutional? it's believe unconstitutional. we do. >> is that because it's limited rigidly to 16? because it's limited to 16 but because the concept of classificationa becomes, in our history and in unjust andanding, an improp