court. can you explain how you see those responses? i don t think those responses could fairly be understood as saying it would never be overruled. i think they all made clear like any other precedent, it subject to stare decisis and weighed in some degree of deference. the whole dock trick of stare decisis has in it some factors that are consulted, that may lead a court to overrule a prior precedent. and the draft opinion that was circulated went in to all of that. now, i think we don t want to get ahead of ourselves. that draft had five voted locked in. i think things could be in flux. martha: really? why? personally. you say why? martha: yes. yeah, well, because i an opinion isn t final until almost
other homeowners on their lawn that violate that policy and none of them got notices. very interesting. in this country, let s face it. catholicism is always under attack. that s what they re going to say. i disagree with my colleague respectfully because there s a dock trick that says if you don t execute on a law and a particular period of time a court says you have waved that level. they never used it before. now they decide to do it is a problem. shannon: quick argument for you, debby. i have flashbacks to the bar. but it s a real thing. what about they haven t enforced this? they say it s been there 16 years. each and every violation is a new violation. so they re not going after what happened 12, 16, 15 years ago. they re going forward with what happened in june once the homeowner was given the letter telling them we need you to seek permission to go forward.