as we all know the root cause for the american revolution was without representation therefore i am coming when i was founding father was at the greek financial read i have to spending in this polluting communist party before elections so therefore the right to rule is not even worth the paper it is printed on and if anyone is to challenge that government will say hey everyone is being treated the same so sta quiet or you will be in trouble now that government that repressive regime has always told its people that america's democracy it's great because ordinary people do not have equal rights and do not have the spending rebuild and improve america is not an animal farm and nexus between defendant's actions and its purported harm and he has failed to show redress ability sovereign immunity independently barred plaintiff's claim as the district court found and the speech or debate clause also independently parsed plaintiff's claims i understood him correctly if there is a grog one that would affect basically everyone with the exception perhaps of a few states so it's not particularize in the way that those cases that i think you're thinking of ha indeed there are citizens in states that have x number of representatives but under constitutional system would have x plus y representatives that would have  should take that as a baseline and so then ok wyoming gets one representative for however many citizens it has but if you took the equivalent number in new york it would have seven war representatives i'm not sure his claim is is correct it's a little hard to get a little muddled here because the rim indeed that mr lewis requesting is is maybe not crystal clear but i want to note in response to your honor's question the clinton case where the supreme court said that there was not jurisdiction for  a challenge that tried to just straight out increase the number in the house of representatives and i i worry that if i understand your question correctly we actually are squarely in that situation we can't just add you know numbers to state delegation because the supreme court is strictly held up there is not jurisdiction for that and i'm not sure i understand how you could get a room of the year that mr lew has in mind without doing something like that and so again all of this to say that there is a line between a specific circumstance or delegation going to lose a specific heat as a result of apportionment or something else again generally based on the census and then the very broad sort of claim that he has  talked about basically the system overall and talked about increasing the total number of seats in the house of representatives and we're on that side of the line and i think that the supreme court's decisions say that on that one you don't have jurisdiction  my understanding is that because there's a lack of a particular eyes injury there i believe this court has actually said in literally in this room last case before the circuit challenging the electoral college and i i think that the same the court held their replies pretty much directly here as as well and i would add just as a final point if the court were to reach the merits which it should not the claims are one house of the other hand you just think we have a