the role of the supreme court has changed over the years. today it certainly plays a central war in our political process. but make no mistake, the court has always been important. joining me today is professor john barrett professor of law at the st. john's university, and fellow of the robert eight jackson fellow. he is the writer of the jackson list, a popular email newsletter and website. and editor of jackson's acclaimed 2003 posthumous book, quote that man. an insider portrait of franklin d. roosevelt. the last new deal insider memoir. also with us today ralph blumenthal distinguished lecturer from baruch college, continues to be a contributor to the times and other publications. author of five books, including the believer about the harvard psychologist john mack who investigated ufos an alien encounters. he actually has a very direct connection with fdr, we will talk about that in a minute. we will start with professor barrett, give us a little bit of your background specifically with your work on justice robert jackson. >> thank you,

and sort of a converging on the supreme court and the people on the court. and robert jackson in particular, someone who was in roosevelt's cabinet as attorney general, was confirmed by the senate through roosevelt appointments to five separate jobs in a very short run of years, became my big project. and for our topic, it matters that jackson was an assistant attorney general in 1937, a principal witness defending the president's court-packing plan and then the solicitor general who argued in defense of new deal laws' constitutionality before the supreme court. so it's the jackson path that brought me into this roosevelt world ask court packing, court reform as a topic. >> jackson was also, of course, part of the nuremberg trials which we can talk about separately. so president roosevelt, give us a little bit about your background both as a reporter and as a -- of the library's collection. one of the key members of fkr's administration -- fdr's administration. >> thank you, paul. i really appreciate being on with you and john. in hi capacity, i supervise ou

sort of a converging on the supreme court and the people on the court. robert jackson in particular. someone who was in roosevelt's cabinet as attorney general. was confirmed through this senate in five different jobs in a very short run of years. he became a big project. for our topic it matter that jackson was a named assistant attorney general in 1937, principal witness defending the president court packing plan, and then the solicitor general who over the next two years argued in defense of new deal laws constitutionality before the supreme court. it is the jackson path that brought me into this roosevelt world and the court performance the tide in. >> jackson was of course part of the nuremberg trials, we can talk about that separately. professor blumenthal, give us a little bit about your background both as a reporter and working at the library collection. one of the key members of fdr's administration. >> thank you paul. i really appreciate being on with you and john. i am a distinguished lecturer at baruch college as you mentioned. in that capaci

the role of the supreme court has changed over the years. certainly today it plays a central role in our political process. make no mistake, the court has always been political. joining me today is john barrett, professor of law at st. john's university. and -- he's the biographer of justice jackson, a popular email newsletter and website. and then editor of jackson's acclaimed 2003 posthumous book, quote that man. and insiders portrait of franklin d. roosevelt. the last new deal insider memoir. also with us today, ralph blumenthal, from baruch college in new york. a former new york times reporter, continues to be a contributor to the times and other publications. the author of five books, including the believer, about the harvard psychiatry wrist, john matt, who investigated ufo an alien encounters. he has a very direct connection to the fdr to straighten. we'll talk about that in a minute. we'll start with professor barrett. give us a little bit of a background, in regards to the supreme court, and specifically your work on justice robert j

this doesn't necessarily mean we have the right sit on supreme court cases until one expires. it can be structured that they move into circuit court or become a senior bench in the recusal or something. they want to continue to be justices. in the meantime, it would be a vacancy that would be created. let's say every president in a four-year term got two appointments, that would be a much more regular thing. that might take some of the political venom out of this process. of course, it would take a statute. it might be challenged. it is ironic to see how the supreme court would be asked in deciding that. after we got past that he would take some number of years before we were in the new regime of orderly and less politicized supreme court opponents. it's a very hard question. >> also, when roosevelt came up with this court plan, it was immediately seized upon that one of the justices -- not cardoza. anyway, he was great and really popular. now of course, people are living longer, that age does not seem to old anymore. secondly, look at the differences between biden and fdr. bid

>> presidents have always sought to appoint the best people to the supreme court. have always had some form of meritocracy. in the recent decades, it is a single version of merit. if judge jackson were to join the court, seven of nine justices would have gone to an ivy league undergrad institution. eight of nine would have gone to just harvard or yale law schools. six of the nine justices -- three of them will have replaced the justice they clerked for. getting a clerkship at the supreme court is the hardest job to get after law school. they have similarities professionally after that. a cluster of people who worked at law firms in d.c. or worked at the white house or the solicitor general's office. it is this hyper elite, highly credentialed group of folks and it is hard to find people who have lived more similar lives from 18 forward than these people, despite their political dissimilarity. justice alito and justice sotomayor share so much. they both went to princeton and went to yale for law school and they both worked as prosecutors. the similarities for their

the case finally reached the supreme court. the court said that the law violated a married couples constitutional right to privacy. you criticize this opinion in numerous articles and speeches beginning in 1971 and as recently as july 26th of this year. in your 1971 article, newton principles and first amendment problems, you said that the right of married couples to have sexual relations without fear of unwanted children, is no more worthy of constitution to protection of the courts then the right of a public utilities to be free of pollution control laws. you argued that the utility companies right or gratification, as you referred to it, to make money and the married couples right to make gratification of sexual relations with that unwanted children, were quote, cases that are identical. it appears to me that you are saying that the government has as much right to control a married couples decision about choosing to have a child or not, as the government has the right to control the public utilities right to pollute the air.

there is an abortion case before the supreme court this term, there are abortion cases in the lower courts, i've sat on three of them on the court of appeals for the third circuit. i'm sure there are others in other courts of appeals that are working their way towards the courts of appeals right now. it's an issue that is involved in a considerable amount of litigation that is going on. >> i would say, judge alito, it's a painful issue for most of us. it is a difficult issue for most of us. the act of abortion itself is many times a hard decision, it's that decision, a tragic decision. i believe that for 30 years we've tried to strike a balance in this country to say that it is illegal procedure, it should be discouraged, it should be legal but rare. try to find ways to reduce the incidence of abortion. but as i listen to the way that you have answered this question this morning and yesterday, the fact that you have refused to refute that statement in the 1985 job application, i am concerned. i'm concerned that many people will leave this hearing with questions as to whether you could be t

that is the supreme court settled interpretation of what the court holding us and its reaffirm as so. >> all right. >> so let me ask you in a difficult area of the law, a question. the supreme court has decided on more than seven occasions that the law cannot put a woman's health at risk. it said it in a row in 73, in down fourth in 76, in planned parenthood in 83, in thornburg in 86, in case in 92, in carhart in 2000, and in iowa in 2006. with both justices roberts and alito on the court, however, this rule seems to have changed because in 2007 in car hard to the court essentially removed this basic constitutional right from women now. here's my question. when there are multiple presidents and a question arises, are all the previous decisions discarded, or should the court riyadh examine all the cases on point? >> it's somewhat difficult to answer that question because before the court in any one case is a particular factual situation. and so how the courts president applied to that unique factual situation because often what comes before the court it's something that's different tha

as i said, i casey reaffirmed the holding in row that is the supreme court's. settled interpretation of what the court holding is and it's reaffirmance of it. all right. so let me ask you in a difficult area of the law a question the supreme court has decided on more than seven occasions. that the law cannot put a woman's health at risk it said it in row in 73 in danforth and 76 in planned parenthood in 83 in thornburg in 86 in casey in 92 in carhart in 2000 and in iota in 2006 with both justices roberts and alito on the court, however, this rule seems to have changed because in 2007 in carhart 2 the court essentially remove this basic constitutional right from women. now here's my question. when there are multiple precedents and a question arises. are all the previous decisions discarded or should the court reexamine all the cases on point? it somewhat difficult to answer that question because before the court in any one case, this is particular factual situation. and so how the courts precedence apply to that. unique factual situation because often what comes

the supreme court, as you know, judge actually took such an approach in the past. holding in 1873 for example that women could not become lawyers. because it was not in the courts phrase in their nature. now no one wants to go back to 17 or 1873. no one wants to go back that far today. but there are natural law advocates. who extol the 20th century version of this philosophy? for they believe that it's the job of the courts to judge the morality of all our activities. whether they occur. pain wherever they recur occur pay no respect to the privacy of our homes and our bedrooms. they believe the court should forbid any activity contrary to their view view of morality and their view of natural law. those who subscribe to this moral code view of natural law. call into question a wide range of personal and family rights. from reproductive freedom to each individual's choice over procreation to the very private decision. we now make about what is and what is not a family. they want to see the government make these choices for us by applying the quote one report their val

the supreme court does have the ultimate authority to decide properly brought before the jurisdiction of the court. and that means where there is a disagreement as to what a particular provision of the law. whether it's that story or constitutional about what it means, they would have to decide that case. the issue thehe final judgment r both or on the term judicial supremacy as if it has trade meaning beyond that. i think some of those suggests the court does not have the power to just issue advisory opinions, speak broadly to all things that has the ability to issue rulings and interpret provisions of law. which it certainly does. i would have to read that article to figure out what they mean by judicial supremacy but that word throws me a little bit. o >> question got her in the first row will take that one before moving back to your side of the room thank you for. >> thank you for your comments. i f wonder if you could speak me about president biden's motivation for supreme court commission and also what you think itit accomplishes or it accomplished his goal? >> it's always tough

the court the supreme court did not begin with a prayer. the circuit courts did not begin with a prayer except for new england. and jay was present, but it was. the first year or two that this happened? and they didn't want to antagonize the citizens who all came to hear court cases. it was kind of entertainment. at the time and so in new england somebody was allowed to quote address the throne of grace before the court session began, but jay was dead set against. so i just wanted to tell you that. fascinating. thanks very much for that really interesting institutional background and reminder of jay's vision of ethics for the court gerard. i don't want to leave bush run washington without getting a sense of his constitutional philosophy. he studied with james wilson who you think persuasively argue with the most underappreciated founding father. he imbibed presumably from wilson this philosophy of natural law from the scottish enlightenment. he embodied it in this core field and coryell decision, which must have been really interesting for y

the supreme court thankfully had already rejected similar arguments presented during wilson's time inffice. . . . d delegitimize the court, individual justices who wereti opposed. most notably the accommodation. the one i regarded of w the the intellectual leader among them the only supreme court justice and a very handsome man. >> a question from the audience. >> my dad was helping the professorship of law at nyu. most of the time one of the moderates in the court and justice owen roberts and joined the interpretation of the qualls. it was unanimous and they are pushing back on fdr's intrusion into federalism so we started demonizing the court. it's reached a crescendo to the point it was ready to push legislation giving him the authority to appoint as many justices bringing to court up to 15. a labyrinth of complicated formulas that it created. joe robinson was a senator from arkansas serving as majority leader. the legislation ultimately failed. it failed in a way in part because it succeeded in intimidating and bullying the court. after all they just moved into its new chambers on

i turned to a him and said i get to go to the supreme court. he looked at me and said yeah, i've got to go to court on wednesday. [laughter] just to understand the gravity of the united states supreme court, people say you ought to take this to the supreme court, but they don't understand how it works. for them to grant it was t incredible. >> and i can't remember -- i think you mentioned in the book, was the essential point to take it to the supreme court, was it about freedom of speech? >> we asked them to reverse the case based on the speech and religious component of it. >> and then june 4th, 2018, you won at the supreme>> court and t was at the 7-ruling. obviously that was an amazing occasion. what was that like when you one? >> it was just as emotional a day as the day they granted. it was even more surprising because this was three weeks before the end of the session, and i was pretty confident they wouldn't make the announcement until the last day. but they granted before. [inaudible] 7-2. looking at my computer like what just happened.

supreme court history. [applause] >> we are kicking off the evening celebration of the justices jurisprudence with a very special award presentation by our centers namesake, former ambassador and white house counsel see boyd in gray. in an honor of justice thomas's two years, and his role is a leading tourist in the 20th and 21st century, this year the gray center is a warning for the first time what will become an annual award named after the justice to honor his ongoing legacy. the justice clarence thomas first principal award will be given out each year in october to an individual who has shown exemplary application to the rule of law, humility, and strength of character. the award is inscribed with a quote from justice thomas and in 2001 speech, titled be not afraid, which embodies the justices approach to life and the law. a warning to never surrender to the understandably attractive impulse towards creative but unwarranted alteration of first principles. justice thomas's story, rising from childhood i

foundation and commemorate the very significant milestone of justice thomas' 30 years and the supreme court. justice thomas is now the longest serving justice currently on the court and at the young age of 73 if he serves for just seven more years. he will become the longest serving justice in us supreme court history. we are kicking off the evening celebration of the justices jurisprudence with a very special award presentation by our sinner's namesake former ambassador and white house council steve. boyden gray. in honor of justice thomas's 30 years and his role as one of the leading jurists of the 20th and 21st centuries this year. the grace center is awarding for the first time will become an annual award named after the justice justice to honor his ongoing legacy? the justice clearance time is first principles of war will be given out each year in october to an individual who has shown exemplary dedication to principled application of the rule of law humility and strength of character. the award is inscribed with the quote from justice thomas from a 2001 speech titled be not afraid tha

supreme court will go that far? >> i am knocking to make any predictions here, what i can tell you that justices alito and thomas at the least have signaled that they are very disturbed in the context of pennsylvania state court constitutional rulings about state election law. so there is no question that that is a an issue before the court and there are some indications that at least some justices are prepared to discuss what to do. >> thank you madam chair, i yield back. >> mr. agee lahr is recognized. -- agee lahr -- aguilar. rep. aguilar: that was cited as part of the creation of fake electors. it would be submitted to congress to get that then vice president to send the results back to the states to prevent certification. can you tell us how this theory informed the strategy that ended up being used by these individuals, john eastman and others to undermine the entry cast ballots of hunt -- of americans. >> independent state legislature notion if adopted would not let state legislatures send a fake slate of ele

garland: this is not in any way going around the supreme court. the supreme court said that each state can make its own decisions with respect to abortion. but so, too, can the federal government, nothing that the supreme court said said that the statutes passed by congress uh -- passed by congress such as emtla are in any way invalid. it's quite the opposite, the supreme court left it to the people's representatives. emtala was a decision made by the congress of the united states, the supremacy clause as a -- is a decision made in the constitution of the united states. federal law invalidates state laws that are in direct contradiction. this has really nothing to do with anything that the supreme court said, and certainly nothing to do with going around the supreme court. >> thank you all. >> thank you. >> appreciate it. and low income housing for renters. this is just under two hours.

no one method for the supreme court by which the supreme court can change its l mind and the law can change but if you look at the history, almost all of these methods combined, let's look at the antitrust case declared unconstitutional. controlled 98% of the sugar perfection of the country, people find a way to say no, they weren't a monopoly. harlem was a forceful center. pretty much within five years, the same justices began to kind of see the light, i do know that it was so much he was persuading them that there are examples of people literally changing their mind on the first amendment so at the end of his lifetime they greatly allowed for more antitrust action but it took 15 or 20 years until they got to a position where they were allowing antitrust. that is the positive example. in the income tax case which was five to four decision and they overruled 100 years of president everyone was rolling their eyes "afterwards", it took constitutional amendment to allow the income tax but to get the process rolling, the big obstacle was getting the states to ratify it and get congress f

i think some supreme court historians would say a little wild west back then on the court.hey were not entirely practicing decorum. interesting though people in the black community paid more attention to john marshall harlan than any of the whites did people like frederick douglass would write about his tremendous courage and his willingness to stand up to all of his colleagues be distinct to the white community. that's a consistent theme among black people. i will say there's nothing in his letters for the written record that's available now to show that heno was himself ostracized for these positions. that he was receiving death threats. his family was being harassed.se they may have been and chose not to collect those letters but there is not any evidence of them. which leads me too leave two things. one is because he was a lone dissenter note and the white community felt threatened l by m but he was the only one he was the eccentric he was somewhat unthreatening but crazy in their minds. the other is in the black community there was this assumption that whites were in c

there is no one method for the supreme court by which the supreme court can change its mind and the law can change. but if you look at the history of the dissent, almost all these methods combined. so let's look at the antitrust cases being declared unconstitutional. there's the case that controls 98% of the sugar production in the country. the supreme court found a way to say they were not a monopoly. he was a soul defender and of course railed against a giant combination pretty much within five years the same justices the that ruled the other way would begin. i don't know that it was harlan persuading, but there are examples of the same people literally changing their mind. all of our wendell holmes changed his mind on the amendment. they greatly relaxed the rules and allowed for more antitrust actions. they got into that position they were allowing antitrust. in the income tax case which was a 5-for decision and they overruled the president. for the senate to accept. he would read the dissent on the floor of the house as a way of showing how wrongheaded the original decision was and

i say 18 years are we go on to say that presidents should appoint supreme court justices a justice in the first year of his or her term and in the third year of his or her term and. that way you have new people coming on to the court, new blood coming on to the court and if you do an 18 year term, it would ultimately reduce the size of the court back down to nine. i also think we need to expand the court given. the fact that those two seats were stolen in the that the way that i describe. i think that you want to have term limits because you point people now to the supreme court at 50 or so i guess the judge in florida who a good judge might as well whatever he rendered an important decision just a little while ago she's 33 years old, right? 33 years old. never tried a case. we haven't gone that far yet in the supreme court. but you can serve on the court now for 30 years, perhaps 40 years. that's too long for somebody to be in a position of power, in an unelected position of power, to have an impact on the direction of the nation. and so i so i think, you know, just all the other rea

was over and done but there was only one option left and that was to appeal to the united states supreme court so we were willing to doo that. >> apparently the court was willing to hear your case and tell us the odds of the u.s. supreme court carrying your case. >> the odds u are extremely smal you will be heard. they are petitioned with 8000 to 10000 cases every year and the only grant 70 or 80. those cases are usually like two circuit courts, ninth circuit and fourth circuit ruled different on two different things so the circuit split so they have to justify that the constitution can't do one thing in california and another in florida, it has to be the same across the board so they are dealing with larger cases and for my case we came from not a circuit court or district court or any large thing, it was a standalone case and basically we were coming from a court of appeals. the odds are incredibly against us. we have to have four justices agree to take your case so all for, at least for have to go over every aspect of the case to make sure it's worth their time and effort and energy it woul

i do not consider myself an expert in the supreme court. i'm a documentary filmmaker. i think is a i think it is surely true that he is now one of the most that he is a strong influence on this supreme court many people call it the thomas court. it's obviously really the roberts court, but i think he is perhaps the strongest influence at the moment and that's why it's important for people to read the book and see the movie and understand him whatever their politics and we really wanted the film to be on pbs because we wanted a broad swath of america to see him and understand him and we want that for the book as well. themes that came out in the book in the interview. is that justice thomas likes to take the longer view? i think that's true. i mean we call them created equal because his life is really based on the way. he sees the declaration of independence those core principles and how they realized in the constitution. you can understand it if you follow his life story. i mean, you know. i think yourself, but maybe not all your listeners now. he's born in pinpoints,

i would have said no problem at the supreme court show up hold such disclosure laws because it would just be a natural extension of what the court at least since 1976 in the buckley versus vallejo decision has said is justified today though. i am concerned in part because the supreme court has changed justice kennedy justice ginsburg justice breyer justice scalia. these were all very strong votes and favor of disclosure justice kennedy and justice scalia republican appointed conserve justices justice breyer and ginsburg. more liberal democratic point of justices there consensus on this issue. and no longer there's consensus by the end of the term. justice breyer will be gone. it's not clear to me that there's still a majority that has the same commitment and we know at least two of the justices the justices thomas and alito have expressed great reservations about campaign disclosure laws and in the banta case, i think we can add some of the other conservative justices as well. the next question in this to me really goes to the heart of your book. is there any way to come that disinfor

i still can't process in my brain if the supreme court ruled in your favor, how could this happen again? >> i'm not sure and john can correct me but if i were speeding down my street and i get a ticket and go to court and beat it, they are saying i was speeding down the street again so i'm getting a new ticket. i'm not able to base my new ticket, i've beat the one ticket last year, now you have a new one. so the cases were similar or identical with separate charges so the courts duty is to file a complaint and see if there is probable cause. the commission is an appointed body appointed by the governor who decided they had probable cause to pursue the case. >> how did that first case with autumn scardina and? >> two years ago in march we were ready to go into the deposition and as we sat down at the conference table with the lawyers on the one side and our attorneys on the other hand court reporters and videographers ready to take down every word as the attorney tries to basically destroy me in the next six hours they said we need to have a meeting and the meeting was to say this is the

if the supreme court ruled in your favor, how could this happen again? >> are not sure how good an analogy is but if i were speeding down my street and get a ticket and go to court to beat it, they are saying i am speeding down the street and ran a red light, i get a new ticket. i'm not able to base my new ticket from last year, now you have a new one so cases were similar or identical in nature but to separate charges so it's to file a complete and see if there is probable cause, the commission appointed by the governor, they decided they have probable cause to pursue. >> and how to that first case with autumn gardena and? had at the end? >> two years ago in march we were ready to go into deposition and as we sat down at the table with lawyers on one side and our attorneys on the other end reporters and videographers ready to take down every word as the attorney tries to basically destroy me in the next six hours, they said we need to have a meeting and is the recorder and stenographer leave, who's to say this is a vehicle we want to use, willing to dism

the supreme court does have the ultimate authority to decide cases and controversies properly brought before the jurisdiction of the court. and that means that the where there's a disagreement as to what a particular provision of the law whether it's statutory or constitutional about what it means they get to decide that case now, they they issue the final judgment. the judgment is what it is. that is the judgment and it is supreme in that regard. some people throw around the term judicial supremacy as if it has a stock and trade meaning beyond that i think some of those suggest that the court doesn't have the power to just issue advisory opinions speak broadly as to all things. it has the ability to issue. rulings in interpret provisions of law in the case in question, which it certainly does. so anyway, i'd have to read that article to figure out what they mean by judicial supremacy, but that word throws me a little bit. it's been a question down here on the first row. we'll take that one before moving back to the other side of the room. thank you. comments. i was wondering if you c

>> the articles in the next issue of the journal of supreme court history which is put out by the supremeistorical society. i believe it's published online already. the paper copies are being printed and will be sent out soon. the historical science society has a separate website than the court itself. you can check out their website to, to look into it. >> the supreme court historical society? >> the supreme court historical society is the official name. >> is an amazing article. and so

the united states supreme court, people say i'm going to take this to the supreme court. they don't understand fohow it works and for them to grant it was just incredible . >> and i can't remember, i think you mentioned it's in the book but with the essential point to take it to the supreme court, was it about freedomof speech ? >> we asked them to reverse the case based on both the speech and religious component. >> and then june 4, 2018, you one. you one at the supreme court and it was a 7 to 2 ruling, ginsburg and so the mayor dissented of course but obviously that was an amazing occasion.what was that like when you one? >> that was just as emotional a day as the day and i was more surprised because this was three weeks before the end of the session and i was confident that wouldn't make the announcement until the last day. like they granted my search on the last day. but i happened to be watching the blog and we have masterpiece.it looks like they win. and it's 72. it's i'm sitting at my computer. what just happened? the phone starts ringing, people are driving by my

supreme court entering your case? >> extremely small that you wil. be heard. ve 8,000 to 10,000 cases every year and are granted a 70 or 80 of them and they have to be usually two circuit courts and then a fourth circuit on two different things so that is a circuit split then they have to justify that. it can't mean one thing in california and another in florida it has to be at the same across the board so they are dealing with larger casess like that. in my case we came from just case and standalone basically coming from a court of appeals but the homes are incredibly against us. you have to have four justices agreed to take your case and they have to t go over every aspect to make sure that it's worth their time and effort and energy to take the case to court. >> what was it like when you found out you were going to the supreme court? what were you feeling? >> that was one of the craziest days of my life. there's a website that is for the supreme court of the u.s. and you can follow any case that you want to that you're looking at. i followed my case for mont

>> the articles in the next issue of the journal of supreme court history which is put out by the supremeistorical society. i believe it's published online already. the paper copies are being printed and will be sent out soon. the historical science society has a separate website than the court itself. you can check out their website to, to look into it. >> the supreme court historical society? >> the supreme court historical society is the official name. >> is an amazing article. and so and so let's make no mistake about it. that the unique importance of this nomination is in part because the moment in history which it comes. for i believe that a greater question transcends the issue of this nomination and that question is will we retreat from our tradition of progress? or will we move forward continuing to expand and envelop?

what is changes the supreme court. has changed is the confirmation of three radical right-wing justices and in that regard the democrats didn't do very well and it shows the polarization of the country. those justices could be confirmed but i will takeas a breath before i go on to attack mcconnell's role specifically. >> mcconnell would say perry reed opened the door by allowing federal judges a simple majority so he was justified in doing the same for the supreme court. is there a sponsor that? >> yeah i think there is a response to that. and by the way one of the charms of senator mcconnell he not only has victories. then he rewrites the history. he is very recently said and he has said many times the left is -- the democrats are responsible for every escalation of the judicial war. that is simply not true. the confirmation of supreme court justices was proceeding relatively normally for a long time until his unprecedented action to prevent the nomination and consideration of merrick garland. he won that one. he came