close arguing they don't have because what the appropriation cross prohibits is for an officer of the united states to make a certain appropriation outside of the outside of what congress a state has  possibility is the equity is the sort of grand valuation of you know what kind of payments puerto rico should be making and i can see why that is a problematic use of equity here there was a reference in the last round by ms bacon to evidentiary problems going back earlier in time but that might be a stronger form of the argument and that's why i'm still a little bit concerned about what we actually argued to the district court here with respect to two thousand and fourteen date because if the district court was of the view that well i don't quite know what the evidence is as to what's going to be going on those earlier years so also that tw seventeen you know that's that doesn't seem like an unusual use of equity you just say it looks murky there so i'm not going to give you an injunction for what's murky it i'm glad you brought that up but i think that what just to clarify what what m was talking about in terms of the lack of evidence that was as i understood what she said it was with respect to race setting that you know rather than going back further and further to try to find a p said but why would i say that if i was a disc why would i set a date subject to injunctive relief when i didn't have any consequence that there would ever be evidence to support a rape that could go back to that date that doesn't seem like a crazy thing for just a court to do to just say well  show me that it's going to be practical i'm not going to make an injunction on that day and that's fine but that's not the issue here ok i think what i what happened here is there was going to be a rate set and it was a question of well the adequacy of the evidence for the for the rapist between for as between twenty million one hundred and forty two thousand and seventeen the real quick the the let's not get confused if if the court were to say i'm going to cut off the reconciliation at this date i'm not going to look back any further that would be what you would call it an exercise of discretion consideration of back with the principals you know just as a practical matter it's not going to be worth the time or money for anybody to go back any further than the state but that's not what the judge did with the judge said was i'm going to go all the way back to two thousand and fourteen to do reconciliations but i'm only going to apply the correct rights as of two thousand and seventeen that's what happened here literally cut and paste so but even you know even if those are legitimate concerns for the court it doesn't say it it's it's still inequitable to to do what the no relationship between those two things knows if you couldn't come to reconciliation would there be any practical reason to establish an earlier date for the rate well i guess it depends on what you can what we mean by the only reason that we have the effective date of the right is important is for the purposes of doing but update that but that raises the concern which is that if you didn't make a showing that you were going to be able to establish reconciliation for that period then it seems not reasonable for a district court to say why would i set the date for that period for the injunction i don't even though it's going to mean anything but he but he ordered the reconciliation to go back to that day let's not get confused here he didn't order the not laid out but as i as i indicated in the in the earlier argument at the horse was setting the date and then determining what date it was so we never really had an opportunity to say that just to demonstrate you depending on what was shown to go back to the district or to make a showing for the earlier date right but then we run into a lot of the case problems we run into a people billet he issues that but that just makes the point which is the just the courts as well you know that's on you not me i mean you've got to make a showing when you make it and again that is that what is being done here is a bit of an end run around law of the case and i can see that because we had an order we we had a question presented by the special master what should be the effective date of the new race we said it should apply throughout the reconciliation period commonwealth argued it should only start as of january two thousand and seventeen because this was in two thousand and sixteen that they filed their brief and so what was happening is before we even get to the point that we're that we're doing o make disconnect from the meeting