so judicial review is not just something that can happen in the Supreme Court, it can happen in lower federal courts, and state courts, all courts. So that's that's one point and some of the special rules that were being litigated at the Supreme Court rules and just said that limit federal courts but not necessarily actually state courts, but I just wanted now, and talked about judicial supremacy, and it can mean different things and how is it the same as or different from judicial review? And what does Marbury vs. Madison really mean? Marbury got invoked today by the United States Supreme Court. They don't actually cite Marbury vs. Madison in every single case. So they ratcheted up the stakes today, they meaning John Roberts and Sonia Sotomayor, and this is what I teach Marbury vs. Madison isn't just common law, it's fed courts, you know, one on one, and this is what I was hired actually at the law school to teach so so I want to actually go through it with just a little bit of care here. Here's what Marbury does not say, quote, The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpret the Constitution, unquote. It doesn't say that at all. Our audience will put the will put the case up on our website, so they can do a word search, they will not find that they will find if they go online, the Supreme Court at least half a dozen times in the 20th and 21st century, citing Marbury for that proposition, but never with a page site. The Supreme Court the ultimate term of the Constitution. Marbury actually didn't say that it actually didn't say much at all about the Supreme Court as such. It actually talked about courts in General, the judicial department which includes, at a minimum, all federal courts, maybe state courts as well, which which add invoked. One of the things that really upset Justice Sotomayor ears, nose out of joint and the Chief Justice is nose out of joint. And and and Justice Sotomayor, his opinion was joined by justices Briar and and Kagan and together that they just added to for for those of you who are counting is that this Texas, fetal heartbeat law is pretty directly inconsistent with Roe versus Wade, and Casey, which are Supreme Court opinions from 1973 in 1992, respectively. Okay, they are. But a statute that's inconsistent with a Supreme Court opinion, even a Supreme Court opinion purporting to interpret the Constitution is not the same thing as a statute that's inconsistent with the Constitution itself. And, and one understanding of judicial supremacy and add rejects judicial supremacy. And so do I, if this is what judicial supremacy means? One understanding is she a two quick conflation between what the Constitution actually says and what supreme how Supreme Court decisions have interpreted the constitution? So in our last week's episode, I said, Gee, Dred Scott said us and so and actually, um, it's a blacks couldn't be citizens. It really does say that my opinion. And Abraham Lincoln, actually his Attorney General, disagreed with that and actually issued a passport a federal passport to a black, which could only issue if that black were really citizen and Lincoln's Justice Department and Lincoln's excuse me, administration, his attorney general Bates took the position, the blacks were citizen could be citizens under the Constitution, and the Dred Scott was just wrong, his obligation, Bates thought was to the Constitution, and not to the judicial opinion. Now, it's possible to imagine a lawsuit might have been able to materialize or not in which that could have been litigated. And the Supreme Court would have had the opportunity then to reaffirm Dred Scott or overrule it. And in effect, that's what Texas is is doing with it statute is passing a law, which will not be immune from judicial review, once it's actually directly enforced against abortion providers or their affiliates, they're Aiders and abettors. And as soon as a minute, no matter what, what other remedies might exist, or ability to come to court, as soon as that law actually starts to get enforced against people, oh, there will be judicial review. And there will be a court case and the court that court case can easily get up to the US Supreme Court, which can decide whether it wants to re affirm Roe versus Wade and Casey or overturn them. And I know you want to jump in on that point. Sure.