supreme court? >> well, in fairness to her, i think she's speaking as a politician, not as a lawyer or legal scholar. i remember we interrogated congressman jim clyburn, the number three ranking democrat, where in the constitution is the federal government authorized to manage health care. he looked at me, and he goes, judge, most of what we do down here is not authorized by the constitution. they are simply concerned with staying in power and with bringing home the bacon. they are not concerned with whether or not what they do is authorized by the supreme law of the land. i think that mrs. pelosi will be unhappily surprised when we learn finally how the supreme court comes down on this in june. but for her to suggest that there isn't even a constitutional argument to be made reveals an embarrassing indifference or ignorance on her part. jon jp there have been an awful lot of suggestions primarily from the left, talking heads on television and so forth, that if this court strike down the law, it is going to be legislating,