i don't know why it has to be a choice. my law clerks tell me in the few cases where i have decented, i am likely to descend from a democratic appointed colleague as a republican appointed colleague. that's, again, because we don't have democrat or republican judges. according to "the wall street journal," i'm told that of the eight cases they have identified that i have sat on that have been reviewed by the united states supreme court our court was affirmed in seven of them. now, i think louise might argue for the eighth. because in that case, the supreme court didn't like a procedural precedent that as a panel we were bound to follow. they remanded it back. we decided on the merits as the court instructed, denied. eight out of eight. on separation of powers, it is,