challenger is not precedent that applies in any fashion to the questions that we are raising in this case i'm not as concerned about the the non germane speed keller prohibits to h they didn't decide it and the reason for that is simple article three section two of the united states constitution prohibits or various jurisdiction to federal courts for chases and controversies and if you look at shell or shell or was a challenge to speech by the california bar or mode in political issues primarily gun control it was a challenge to non to speak there was no challenge there was no discussion there was nothing regarding whether you could use own germane speech based upon and they saw it all a just a one sentence statement saying that it was a lot it was not necessary and their decision in any way shape or it was not litigated by anyone there was no argument that approach the court could make a determination in this case that you could build the wall down in mexico in a free speech case involving integrated bars and that becomes precedent just because they say it well it doesn't matter that's made a better example would be you know we're challenging these two different types of walls and the court says you know it we're only challenging this other kind of wall that you can't do it you know we're not challenging this other time in the courts ok you can use the money for the fifteen but not for the other it seems to me justices decided the constitutional question for a pump talked about it but they specifically said that they were not going to decide the constitutional question is that they affirmed the wisconsin supreme court on procedural grounds so there's no decision it's a plurality decision now up until july of two thousand and eighteen when janice was decided those cases certainly have some effect on arguments but they're not precedent they may be persuasive of why you made decisions in the past or what not about what the supreme court is going to do but they're not precedent less this decision the court made otherwise you're talking about follow they apply acting scrutiny to that means to see if it passes that and that's what has not been done in integrated bars and we're arguing needs to be done in this case it's the only way to make it work otherwise we're talking about one sentence in shall or somehow makes a precedent and that was not the issue or the course it was argued was not litigated it may be that we think that's what the court decided but we have no way of knowing because they didn't say they didn't discuss said other than just making a comment that was not necessary in a litigation over whether you can use the funds  or non germane speech remembering that shelter team then after abuse shortly thereafter parties were suing because this violated they thought the abboud decision on the use of an authority funding for non they're trying to figure out what the supreme court might not you know there had been an argument or a challenge yell or two to use the funds or germane speech i would agree with but there was no such challenges and therefore for they do anything they have to submit some sort of explanation of what they're going to do and give the members the opportunity to opt out of that because prohibited that it's not a matter often out janice requires you to opt in and if there's going to be the speech issue it doesn't say you have a right to opt out you have to opt in in order to use or mandatory on's they also have the freedom of association claim which in this case certainly the pallies have agreed it was not raised in janice and i've cited that on page twenty four of their  problem is understanding what's it germane to is whether it's germane to the compelling state interest it's not whether the means makes any type of scrutiny at all if it's non germane you don't have the right to infringe on st amendment rights  differences that make this  is like can they force them to be a member of a group or supreme court said you can't do that with unionists but we can do that with lawyers we can force compel impelled association so that you're compelled to associate with a message that you don't agree with or talking about says they didn't decide it they absolutely sense the greatest sense that compulsory membership and the use of funds from compulsory members to fund activities dreaming into the regulation of lawyers is permissible they have done the analysis and said that's ok now mr spencer terms they didn't do the analysis it's not part of the decision but in fact it is in i think it would be unfair or inappropriate for this court to say nor the words of the supreme reasoning i'm sorry to interrupt you but this is is actually really getting to the meat of the issue i think because supreme that's pretty clear the panels are not bound by a prior decision doesn't have recent and what is the reasoning in ma and i think the reason is that in  could be could be it whether it's extreme or not it has to be outside the bounds and this is where we get i don't think that's accurate though again i think you're making a same mistake that you're that you're the particles and they say you can't assume with supreme court case maybe you can do that it will be with with with our courts because we have to cite issues that are front of us you can decide that we implicitly what the supreme court the supreme court can be presented with a claim and just say you know what i don't care i'm not going to reach out and that's exactly what they did in color not only that inductors to be and my inspiron laws endeavors to be downward which means it doesn't fact only do those things which it is constitutionally permitted to do under oath and therefore the the idea that any ordered litigation there is in fact one instance which is this publication that went to but the notion that every time that if you mess up somehow you finally did the constitution as if you were in fact having the proper remedy or proper procedural safeguards the court has said if you have proper procedural safeguards then that doesn't run than the actual messed up as you might call it doesn't rise to a concert a way in the i give you that but keller says compel the joint was a different deal and i realize that like it seems kind of weird that it would decide one not the other but that's what the court and what i'm suggesting to your honor is that there's no there's no good reason to apply a different standard under the st amendment to the association claim than it is to the speech because it definitely except for when i read the u s supreme court's i mean i think the supreme court's changed where it was that in a boot kalar just have this right and so when i read the more recent stuff and i have to apply that stuff i think it repeats to a different conclusion but you don't think so i don't think so i don't think there's anything in the court precedent that suggests that there's a different analysis of that question if i can come and get it all are and somehow that somehow creates an additional or a different onus on that where and if you if you read that the former is permissible and i think a requires that the suggesting that there's a different result in the question and it's assuming that we don't agree with the district court's decision that the what i'm calling the pure free association claim is foreclosed by color and maher is proposed by any case what do we do with that should we should we t there is a difference in freedom of association and freedom of speech now they are all in protected by the st amendment yes but they are different freedoms and clearly kalar did not decide the freedom of it wasn't decided how could it be precedent you have to follow it but you don't tell us oh yes but yeah so what is the so let's i want to focus on the difference between freedom of association the freedom of speech so if you  or tells us that you can have a procedure for refunding money for speech that is objectionable what is there in the association outside of the speech that is objectionable why should the remedy be the same on a freedom of association claims it is on the freedom of speech play what's the difference between association speech in this context first off i disagree with the judge at the germane speech has been decided just because it was stated in that opinion was not a decision so bad obviously an issue that is there it is a little bit difficult because they are similar the reason for freedom of association is you don't want to be part of another organization it's not necessarily because of their speech i don't have to be compelled to be a member with someone else i may not like the  were to move to the california model would you object to being to being regulated by the california state bar oh i'm going to california model california state bar is now a state agency with state employees a license to journeys i think that may be a wonderful way to objection there i'm trying to figure out what is the difference between your objection to go along to the association and your objection to belong to the association because of that speech there are similar and i  i don't think there's any difference but part of that is that i think the issue is whether or not germane speech can be funded and i don't think kalar decided that question despite department motor vehicles if you have a driver's license membership so i since it is not meant to judge by before i mean just by this question is what is the difference between if you did the safeguards protect you know giving your money back between a freedom of association claim and of a freedom of speech claim that one thing that you one thing i thought that i thought i heard you say well i only have a right under free speech to do receive money back for non germane speech that's what janice is all about janice's not about non germane speech because you could not use funding for non germane speech already there wouldn't be a need for janice if it was all be a member with someone else you could object to i believe as well i think counsel so i think this back and forth is sort of clarified something for me at least and that is i think by you collapsing jermaine and non germane saying you can't  it's certain kind of speech that you wouldn't have to find if it wasn't like a licensing and i think that that's that's probably different in an association claim saying for instance that i should know i should just be able to add judge by and judge card owns decisions to my opinion without there and associate them with my crazy ideas in my opinions without them agreeing to it right and no amount of money would compensate them for that i think that's the idea of