the scalia trick was to get someone to tell a resort owner to invite scalia on a free vacation with aal invitation on the free vacation and then not disclose it as a gift because it was, quote, personal hospitality. well when that was pointed out to the judicial conference they blew that scheme. because it is obvious that arranging a personal invat resort owned by somebody you don't even know does not amount to the kind of personal hospitality like family tasis for allowing nondisclosure of big gifts. the question before them now is when they did that was that a clarification of the law or was that a new rule? it took scalia's lawyersut nanosecond to jump in and say, oh this is a new rule and we're going to comeply with it. why did the lawyers pop up with that? the reason they popped up with that is because they wanted to say it was a new rule if it was a clarification which is what the judicial conference said they would have to amend all of his previous filings that were filed in violation. that would be a mess. and so justice thomas has a lot at stake in that d before the judicial

territory since justice scalia died. >> many of the older people in public service dying in office and scrambling politics and jurisprudence. we're joined by nbc news historian michael beschlosh. welcome back. >> thank you, ari. always. >> your thoughts on this issue. >> i thought you said it really well. it reminded me of many things. thomas jefferson said there should be a revolution in society and especially in government every generation. there always should be young people coming up. if he were living today he would say that's one way of making sure you've got members of congress who understand social media, the internet and that maybe facebook you don't put a quarter in the box to get it to work. another thing is that there was a feeling that the problem would be solved by average life expectancy. when the writing of the constitution occurred 1787, average life expectancy in america was about 30 to 40 years old so if you're a senator, you're elected at the ainge of 30, you're probably going to die either in your first term or during the second unless you allowed for the fact that

i mean, as soon as antonin scalia died, i said i telling somebody, i bet i can find a conspiracy theory like right now that moment i saw conspiracy theory on the internet about what happened to antonin scalia. and so, you know, so that's done it. and then and then look it's a business model polarization. a business model. it's a business model. politicians today there, they're not doing a lot of legislating, but they are a lot of performing in front of the cameras. and that's a lot of what they do with that when they're actually in congress. and there's and polarization is a business model for some of the some of the media as and and so that aggravates and so all of that and then some of our own behavior which i think which i talked about earlier is that i really think that we need to we can't be combatants. we to be reporters, we have to be journalists. we have to behave. i don't think that our work is going to be respected the way that it to be. if we're going to run around with our hair fire constantly, let's just do the work and let the work speak for itself and make sure, that work

federal law can supercede statlaw, in those days the issue of the slavery, ruth bader ginsburg and scaliao enforce the eighth amendment. and i just think that is the way out for mr. trump. just go past the crazy people in new york. >> there is about protects individual rights and donald trump's rights includes that protects every american, i agree, i'm hoping we see a victory on that front. larry: vivek ramaswamy thank you, sir, we appreciate it. talk soon. >> coming up on kudlow, general jack keane with his take on why the democrats seem to be turning against israel, then my pal kell kellyanne co conway. safety and security driving women and minority voters to trump. we'll be right back. i bought the team! kevin...? i bought the team! i put it on my chase freedom unlimited card. and i'm gonna' cashback on a few other things too... starting with the sound system! curry from deep. that's caaaaaaaaash. i prefer the old intro! this is much better! i don't think so! steph, one more thing... the team owner gets five minutes a game. cash bros? woo! i like it. i'll break it to klay. cashback lik

federal law can supercede stlaw, in those days the issue of the slavery, ruth bader ginsburg and scaliaorce the eighth amendment. and i just think that is the way out for mr. trump. just go past the crazy people in new york. >> there is about protects individual rights and donald trump's rights includes that protects every american, i agree, i'm hoping we see a victory on that front. larry: vivek ramaswamy thank you, sir, we appreciate it. talk soon. >> coming up on kudlow, general jack keane with his take on why the democrats seem to be turning against israel, then my pal ke kellyanne c conway. safety and security driving women and minority voters to trump. we'll be right back. [ applause ] the day you get your clearchoice dental implants changes your struggle with missing teeth forever. it changes how you eat, how you feel, and how you enjoy life. it changes your smile and how others smile at you. clearchoice network doctors have changed over 100,000 lives with dental implants, and they can change yours, too. because a clearchoice day changes every day. schedule a free consultation. b

asustice scalia wrote, the apa's text contemplates courts, not agencies, will authoritatively resolve biguities in statutes. and, third, this court's only justion for chevron is the implied delegation theory, but that theory is a fti. there's no reason to think that congress intends everyuity in every agency statute to give agencies an ongoing poweto interpret and reinterpret fedew in ways that override its best meaning. in this case, the agency misinterpreted the mforce struggling fishermen to pay up to 20 percent of the aual profits to federal agents. the government says that even if all nine of you agree with us that the agency'construction is worse than ours, you should nonetheless defer to that construconnd uphold their program under chevron. that's not consistent with the rule of law. if we have the best view of the statute, we should win this case. i welcome the c's questions. justice thomas: mr. martinez, how much deferen iin tension with the judicial role? martinez: i think it's very much in tension, your honor. justice thomas: no. how much would it require? i an, your argume

you know, justice scalia in his famous article in 1989 -- justice kagan: it's not a tie-breaker. there are just some times where you look at a statute and the most honest reading is that there's -- the's -- there's a gap there -- martinez: but -- justice kagan: -- because of the limits of language, because of the limits of our ability to predict the future. and so who fills that gap? martinez: but i -- i guess what i would sort of push bk is i don't think there's a gap if the court looks athetatute and thinks, hey, this is a really hard case, it's a really close statute. fifty-two percent likely, i think -- you know, i have 52 percencoidence that x is right -- justice kagan: i'llive you -- martinez: -- 48 percent likely -- justice kagan: -- i'll give you another one, mr. martinez. does the term "power productn" -- i'm just -- these are real cases. martinez: gh justice kagan: these are -- esare prototypical chevron cases. martinez: but -- justice kagan: does the term "power production capacity" refer to ac power thats nt out to the electric grid or dc power that's produced ba lar

. >> don't tell me, scalia. >> almost. justice alito. >> oh, come on. >> so the point is, all of us, everyone who is watching this has a right to this public trial. the trial that is finally going to happen in april 15th, where everybody gets their day in court. just to be clear, the state and the defendant, it's something we all are entitled today. >> what donald trump's fundamental argument is, and they're using all these tactics. it almost doesn't matter what the individual arguments are at this point. it's just to throw an appeal in or some way to get more adjudication and the grinding system gives them the opportunity to do it. but the bottom line is he does not feel that any judge, state or federal, has the right to put him on trial for anything. >> right. that is autocracy versus the rule of law. >> a dictator. >> that is what is on the ballot. i mean, that extreme, the reason you have liz cheney saying, you know, i can get over policy differences, because this is about democracy and what it means to have a rule of

our first witness is professor of law at the antonin scalia school of law at george mason university. he has published extensively on ip law. next, mark dean, cofounder of a medical device incubator. mr. dean is a coinventor on two hundred 50 issued and pending u.s. patents. then we have david jones, executive director of a coalition of innovative high-technology companies like google, intel, microsoft and adobe. then we will hear from david cap . he is director of the u.s. patent and trademark office. if you all will stand very briefly so we can swear you in. do you swear and affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? saint -- thank you all. you may be seated. >> thank you ranking member tills and members of the subcommittee. in q4 this opportunity to speak with you today about the pressing need for reform of section 1 and why congress should pass01 the patent eligibility restoration. patent eligibility doctrine was converted into something never before seen coming turning what the supreme court once rightly called a

joining me now chris landau former law clerk to justices scalia and thomas. did we hear about how the decorum of the state of the union and the way justices sit there and it's all kind of so inspiring because politics aren't part of it. what happened last night? >> yeah, laura, as you mentioned earlier in the show, the state of the union is actually constitutionally required address. the president is required to talk to congress about the state of the union and give a report. the justices have traditionally attended but for -- this is the first time i believe in u.s. history that the president has directly addressed the justices and he actually said you. he looked at them as we just saw in that clip and basically said you are responsible and you will sow what you reap or reap what you sow. it was a very dramatic and really norm-shattering moment, laura. it should be very discouraging to americans, especially from somebody who billed himself as a unifier. >> laura: instead of just going around the supreme court as we have seen biden do with, you know, things l

that was especially important when you had that, when antonin scalia's death happened, and he kept thatthat point put donald trump and his pick for a supreme court on the ballot. that may well have helped donald trump win that election are. obviously, they went on for, to fill three supreme court seats under donald trump's tenure, remade part of the federal jewish disturbly and used that majority to really enable other aspects of the trump presidency from the if tax cuts, for instance, to rolling back a lot of obama regulations. this was a guy who knew how to get things done as a majority leader. paul: i don't think donald trump is president in he doesn't keep that -- if he doesn't keep that seat open. they wouldn't have the court legacy without mcconnell. so the left, obviously, dislikes mcconnell for the reasons kim said, he was effective. why do so many conservatives dislike him? >> well, you know, they call him a rino, republican in name only. they believe the party has moved in trump's direction. that the party is more populist rather than traditional republican. paul, we could sit

justice thomas has come out in defense of clanton, who graduated from the antonin scalia law school atgeorge mason university, which has long had ties to conservative donors and has maintained close relationships with supreme court justices. in a historic victory for college sports, the dartmouth men's basketball team has voted to unionize. the players voted 13-2 to join service employees international union local 560. this comes as dartmouth is seeking to overturn a february decision by the national labor relations board classifying the basketball players as employees of the university, which granted them the right to unionize. in other education news, the evangelical christian school liberty university has agreed to pay an unprecedented $14 million federal fine for failing to report sexual assaults and other crimes on the campus. it is the largest fine ever levied under the federal clery act. and in germany, a militant left-wing group has claimed responsible for cutting off power and shutting down production at tesla's largest electric car factory in europe, which tesla is hoping to

scalia and ginsburg did this. there that exemplifies the best parts of civic life?the good role models? who embodies these lessons? >> absolutely. it is sol. the chairs of the national constitution center joined together for discussions and show the discussions our differencesphilosophy rather ths helped citizens understand what a clash of personalities but principle. that is w we are trying to teach methodologies for constitutional interpretation in middle school. a radical idea that seems te working. when you can listen to the arguments on both sides and read the opinions before making up your mind, that is the model of the way things are supposed to be. >> and some of this, i wanted to go to's gail and happiness and how it's being preserved. are they keeping the rights for happiness and keeping it from keeping it from any laws. you're supposed to be self-governing locally. eighbor. there was not one hour services. cal level as much as a national level. it gave, how should we understand this relationship? >> my next book is about how the debate between hamilton an

joining me now is chris landau former law clerk to justice scalia.day and said trump should crowd fund this fine like i think like 1 million supporters. each gave him $450. that would cover the fine. but in the meantime what are his options here an emergency stay from a federal court? where does he go? >> well, he is in the state court system now. so, what he has to do, the trial court in new york, justice engoron who imposed the fine refused to stay it. he has to go to the new york intermediate appellate court, seeking relief and seeking some kind of a stay without posting the full amount of the bond, which his lawyers have said is impossible. who has $500 million in cash just sitting around under a mattress. we are talking about a wonder that would be put into escrow that satisfy the judgment. if is he able to raise that, that allows him to get a stay automatically and there can be no execution of the judgment. unless he gets relief either from the new york intermediate appellate court or from the new york's highest court. >> the court of appeals.

ruth bader ginsburg, scalia, some others used that a couple years ago to enforce the eighth amendment that's the way out for mr. trump. just go past all these crazy people in new york. >> absolutely. applies to state overreach as it does to federal overreach. it is about protecting individual righted and donald trump's rights because that protects every american as well. i agree with you, larry and i am hoping we see a victory on that front, amount vivek ramaswamy, we appreciate it. k soon. general jack keane his take why the democrats seem to be turning against israel. my pal kellyanne conway, safety and security are driving women voters to trump. safety and security. you're always safe with kudlow. we'll be right back. when you're a small business owner, your to-do list can be...a lot. ♪ [ cellphone whooshes ] [ sighs ] that's why progressive makes it easy to save with a commercial auto quote online so you can take on all your others to-dos. already did. see if you could save at progressivecommercial.com. (luke) so... i hear some of you are concerned about the fact that i'm taking o

election is a function of the state and the supreme court in that case, conservative judges like scalia, who had always said, states rights and the federal government shouldn't get what suddenly decided in this case. no, the fed's are gonna get involved when we're going to get involved don't you think that undermines the credibility of the court >> that's for you to say that's not for me to say. i worked with many of the people there for many years. and what i say it's a kind of bad faith. and what i say about this in bad faith is nothing nothing i don't want to say anyone is using bad faith i say they're using the wrong approach and that's a different thing. and the reason i think it's important is because i believe many people today seeing decisions, they don't like and that they think are wrong, are very ready to say, oh, it's all politics or it's all what you like or don't like. and i say, well, i can't prove zero. i can't prove zero. it's not ordinary politics. and i do think the groups that try to get somebody appointed x their politics political, believe me. but x isn't. >> i >>

if you look at the language that justice scalia discussed, a situation where the right is one, the legal and practical value would be destroyed and these claims of absolute immunity falls within that discrimination -- >> explicitly stating that and don't have communication with ytng in the statute. >> disagree. the doctrine ariseesro article 2 and section 1. it is enrced by the impeachment judgmentlae which refers to trial. wallace facility is talking about a tuion where the right not to be tried is diinguishishing and is dismissal of an indicen we have the trial of any of the clauses in which the supreme has found ierlock can you tower jurisdiction. >> on the immugs midland asphalt -- >> n presidential -- >> the argument situations where the court said lo, ere is a speech and debate claimnd another claim that doesn't derive fm the constitution but closely akin -- >> in the double jeopardyri scenario you have twice put in jeopardy so you cannot be tried ain in that regard. in the speech and date says shall not be questioned, so the language was explicit but doesn't sayx plies italy. >> o

>> we have three responses if you look at theanage that justice scalia discussed, a situation wherehe right is one, the legal and practical value would be destroyed and these claims of absut immunity falls within that discrimination -- >> explicitly stanghat and don't have communication wh anything in the statute. >> i disagree. e doctrine arisees from article 2 and section 1. it is reenforced by the impeachment judgment clause which rerto trial. wallace facility is talking about a situation where the righ not to be ted is distinguishishing and is dismisl of an indictment. we have the tria of any of the clauses in which the supre has found interlock can y ter jurisdiction. >> on the imms midland asphalt -- >> not presidential -- >> the argument situations where the court said look, there is a spch and debate claim and another claim that doesn't derive from t constitution but closely akin -- >> in theouble jeopardy trial scenario you have twice put in jeopardyo you cannot be tried again in that regard. inhe speech and debate says shall not be question, so the language was explit t does

. >> yeah, let's just say -- scalia would have really made it up >> seth: chris eliopoulos is the fantastic and did you always know you would do it with chris >> yeah, i mean, chris is the superstar, right i mean, you know how many books have been written about amelia earhart or abraham lincoln or ruth bader ginsburg? chris is the secret sauce. and his art style, you know -- if you want kids to love it -- i want my kids off their screens, off their phones you've got to give them something better to look at. and chris' art is breathtaking we learned early on with his art that kids gravitate to these heroes when they're kids so we think of ruth bader ginsburg as a serious supreme court justice, but when she was a little kid, instead of having a birthday party, her mother would cancel her birthday parties, take her to the local jewish orphanage, and instead give away ice cream to the local orphans. do you know what would happen in my house if i canceled my daughter's birthday party? like she doesn't want to come to your party [ light laughter ] >> seth: no, yeah. >> but what i love in that mom

and where i say that frequently was nino scalia and i used to discuss in public the? differences in our approach to the constitution, i remember and statutes two. >> and >> he would say i have too complicated the system. >> only >> use steven can do it and then i'd say to him, but if we follow eu nino will have a constitution that no one would want. >> interesting. so you're sticking by those words that were producing a constitution that no one wants. >> well, if you follow the now, not everybody knows what this word textualism means >> the >> you're less originalism. >> what does it mean? it means when you look at a statute? >> do >> see some words. when you look at this >> document, the constitution, there are more words that's what lawyers do. they look at words and sometimes those words are not clear as to how they apply. and then the case might get to the supreme court and how will you decide? with those words mean, how they apply? >> a >> textualist or an originalist says, i'll tell you how. go read them read them and don't look at much else. just read those wor

circuit from 1997-1998 and for justice antonin scalia of the supreme court of the united states duringterm. in washington, d.c., she became a law professor joining the faculty of notre dame law school in 2002. she was appointed audge of the united states court of appeals seventh circuit in 2017. president trump dominated her as an associate justice of the supreme court and she took her seat on october 27, 2020. [applause] i want to begin, justices, with just recognizing this time that we are in, both civic learning centrality of those themes, but also the time warin in the country. we are approaching the 250th anniversary of the nation's founding in a couple of years, and unlike the bicentennial nearly half a century ago, there are a lot of debates about who we are as a country and where we are headed. one of t■he tabhings true across the board, left and right, is there has been a declining level of confidence and faith in institutions. before we get to that importance of civic learning, i wanted to get to the question of confidence in public institutions and why, from your vantage poi

out front now bobi scalia, retired navy captain and diver captain morgan mcmanus and instructor at sunye here in new york. and marie schiavo, former inspector general with the us department of transportation. it's good to have all of you with us tonight and to have your expertise, your captain mcmann is i think what is remarkable to so many people is how quickly this seemed to have happened that at 01:24 a.m. those lights go out on the ship a minute later, there's thick black smoke coming from the ship, admitted after that, the lights flicker again and then the ship crashes into the bridge. given how quickly it happened, given what we see in that video, captain wanted to tell you about what may have happened well, thanks for having me first. >> i think the biggest takeaway is that the they realized they were having problems with that initial blackout. when you look in the video, you see the ship go dark. so at that moment down in the engine room, alarms are going off, they're trying to go through the blackout recovery, restart everything up the pilot is trying to get information from th

to quote the justices back at themselves also then one of the paragraphs they have both kevin and scalia quota together. so generally speaking, that can work. i imagine that jack smith might do the same thing if he thinks there's something in kevin i his writings the problem for trump is that it's not really what kevin was saying. kevin was talking about why an incumbent president should not be distracted by ongoing criminal prosecutions, investigations. that's the cabinet argument. kevin. i don't think wants to be associated with this absolute immunity argument, which they're making. so it actually might turn him off right? when and just to be clear, incumbent and trump is not incumbent i mean, just absolutely reject the argument that apples-to-apples. >> right. those folks who think that the incumbent president is immune make the argument that he's immune or she immune until they leave office and that's the the situation you're in right now. >> all right. >> all right. ryan, thank you very much. and as we are tracking this breaking news. we've got more breaking developments right now,

joining me now, chris land, our former law clerk to scalia and thomas. chris, how many times did we hear h about how the decorum of the state of the union, the way justices sit thereause and it's it's all kind of so inspiring because politics aren't part of it. what happene yeah,d, last night? >> young as you mentioned earlier in the show, the stateed of the union is actually constitutionally required addres requis. and the president is required to talk to congress about the state of the union giva re and e give a report. the justices have traditionally attendedthis is , but for this e first time, i believe, in u.s. anstor hasy that the president s directly addressed the justices . and he actually said you he looked at them, as we just saw in that cliply s, and basically said you are responsible, you will. so what? ww. eap or reap what you so and it was a very dramatic and really normal shattering moment. >> all right. it should be very discouragingty to especially from somebody who billed himself as a unifier . >> well, instead of just going around the

i think it shows why mitch mcconnell went to the lengths she went to to keep that seat open when scaliabert at. why donald trump won in 2016, why he has delivered for conservatism in a way that no other president has, and why fundamentally the court is truly the corner store of what modern conservative-ism is. as someone who has been covering conservatism for over a decade, what do you think? >> republicans made a calculation a number of years ago that the way that they could wield power most effectively and government was through the judiciary. i think they understood this before a lot of people on the left dead and they have been laying the groundwork for this for decades. what this case is about that we are talking about here is that it's really not about the second amendment or gun rights. it's one about the longest running and most far reaching goals of the conservative legal project, which is to dismantle the administration. two week in the federal government. and i think this is one case of many where you see conservatives able to achieve their ideological aims regardless of popu

. >> in the field oftatutorye interpretation, justice scalia was the chchf the holy trinity, a case wherethough it's pretty hard to think that congress actually meant that to apply in certain tuations. as youeehis case, this is another church of the holy iny ca >> i would say it's quite in sechf the holy trinity, one of the argument the government is makg e certainly in the ■it borrow a phase that was used from the holy trinity inn.+p i don't think a textuality judge caaccept the rationale this being offered by the u.s. governme, d they are in their brief making purpose of this argument along the lines of what we saw in church of the holy trinity. >> thank you. >> justice sotomayor? >> why would even a personit arthritis, why would congress think they needed to shoot 400 to 700 or 800 rounds of ammunition under any circumstance? >> if you don't let a person without arthritis do that, why would you permit a person with arthritis to do it? >> they don't shoot 400 to 700 rounds, because the magazine only goes up to 50 so you're still going to have to change the magazine after every round. we

the fluke innis of justice scalia died in february of 2016, as opposed to february 2015. the fluke innis of ginsburg dying in september 2020 as opposed to january 22. i mean. right. it's these two things together where in a system with a court that's looking over its shoulder, even if you the same radical, polarized in appointments, you probably don't get the same behavior from the court. right. and that's how those things fit together, in my view. mm hmm. i was struck, though, in reading shelby county by chief justice, kind of. well, we don't need the voting rights anymore. there's no more discrimination in voting in this country. that's not what expect supreme court justices to say. i mean, we all learned in fourth grade civics, congress makes law. so, i mean i mean, my my i am i am i am sort of agnostic about the justice bader ginsburg hagiography. but. her single favorite, her single best of opinion is that's like saying you don't need an umbrella anymore because you're not getting wet and you know, i live in texas. you know, many most of you live in arizona. i mean,

we know that justice former justice scalia died while he was on one of those trips. and the reality is that i think the court's legitimacy know democrat on trips, i'm just asking nothing where although there have been justices who apparently forced democratic appointed justice, who >> asked people to buy certain numbers of books before they would've read that, right? and so i think that the court itself is its legitimacy is being questioned. i think legitimately, b. on the basis of the decisions that they've made, but also the conduct that they engage in. they are that kind of removed. i think from the normal strictures at those in the legislative branch and the executive branch have to go through and it's why i think that justice we serve 18 year terms. they get on there. yeah >> i'm definitely four ethics rules. i think those are good things, but i mean, i'm looking at senator menendez. i mean, you get guy had gold bars in cash and as mattresses or whatever and it being indicted multiple and his want to be out of the senate. >> thank you for saying that i have late

if trump won and all that sad day when we lost justice scalia i made another pledge that obama would not fill this seat that honor will go to donald trump next year. >> still, mcconnell said this to kset after donald trump's shocking when that year, i didn't think president trump had a chance of winning. >> what from that moment, one analyst says mcconnell nuanced his approach to donald trump mcconnell i think has always been someone who looked to see how he could benefit from trump >> rather than forcefully expressing his concerns about trump. and that is really the story. i think a much of the establishment of the republican party during the first trump term, they thought they could by the tiger and get benefits out of it. and they did. possibly their biggest benefit drastically changing the shape of the supreme court in mitch mcconnell has been fantastic. he has >> been really great alongside donald trump, mitch mcconnell, place to three conservative justices on the supreme court and their biggest legacy at this at this time is overturning roe v. wade. >> mcconnell also successful

statutory interpretation on eql footing, and it required independent legal judgment as to bo as justice scalia wrote, the apa's text contemplates that courts, not agencies authoritatively resolve ambiguities in statutes. d, third, this court's only justification for chevron is the plied delegation theory, but that theory is a fiction. there's no rto think that congress intends every ambiguity in every agencute to give agencies an ongoing power to interpret d interpret federal law in ways that overdets best meaning. inhicase, the agency misinterpreted the msa to force ruling fishermen to pay up to 20 percent of their annual ofits to federal agents. e government says that even if all nine of you agree wi uthat the agency's construction is worse than ours, you should nonetheless de that construction and uphold their program unevron. that's not consistent with the rule of law. if we have the best view of the atute, we should win this case. i welcome the court's questions. justomas: mr. martinez, how much deference is in tension with theudial role? martinez: i think it's very much in tension, your.

and that's what scalia says.hal, the founders. he said it's too complicated. you're the only one who can work it. i said, that's not so. if so you have a system that will produce a constitution and a set of laws that no one will want. >> justice breyer, as you know, this country is on the edge of something historic happening in the court, and a lot of people don't pay attention to the court every day, but people of influence certainly do, an element of pace of pay, we had nixon and the watergate papers, we've had bush/gore, those decisions came down from the court fairly rapidly in terms of the court's usual pace, but now, the court seems to be slowing down things, slowing down things and slowing down things, is there any rational explanation for the amount of time being taken to make these decisions? >> well, i don't have that experience that you described. in the 28 years it's much more mechanical in the sense of taking cases or not. my experience is when a case is ready it comes there, why do we take a case? w