imputing the six year term that only applies to commissioners to the press in paper has been flying back and forth on the two cases course the puerto rican supreme court decision in the scary schiavo before one gets into that decision one question is whether this case  argument is it possible to think of this case as being different because it's not a question of abolishing an office and recreating the office  repeal is is a limitation on the governor's power who are a number of years six years and therefore this case say some questions are helpful to us to have you answer so the way i understand the federal procedural due process clause there has to be a claim that the state has been adequate due process to hear a particular claim and that if for left to the state court system so to my mind the diaz carries schiavo case has a different significance than the significance about limitations on governor's powers it seems to suggest that the puerto rican state court says is a perfectly adequate procedural due process because people can receive relief there and as a result those claims who really should be in the state court system and not in the federal court system that the federal court would be ill place to say that the state court cannot give adequate process here and  in their rivera k is the state court seems to be saying apart from its specific holding that they are more than adequate to decide these  questions so then it becomes a matter of whether federal court intervention in this situation is warranted that's slightly different than the arguments you have been presenting to us but it does seem to me that after rivera from the state court it's a valid question for us to be when the state has not provided an adequate form and the mere fact that the parents decided these questions would seem there is a pending state court proceeding involving the same issues then it sort of easier for the federal court to defer to the state court but why does it matter since the federal due process clause is it's geared under supreme court precedent in such a way to be informed only when the state procedures are  court that we're raising the question about he may choose to but the federal court notion of when a citizen of the state can invoke the federal due process clause depends could be decided by the federal court or it could be decided by the state court and i'm raising the question about why that's a good starting point because the state court is perfectly capable of deciding whether there is a property and trust whether they've done so in this case or not a kind of isn't the real question he could be in the state system he could get an answer from the state courts as to whether he has a property interests that continues despite the governor's the legislature's removal and further empowering of the government as to governor as to his ability to remove  that that's in a sense a different question than was resolved in rivera but the point is that the state court system is perfectly capable of answering apply it how high level policy making officials that is the law the question is whether the district court has addressed that question in this case no your honor it has the right and did the was political discrimination so ok yet have you answered my question about whether there is anything inadequate about the state court system to handle days to answer bluntly your honor we don't believe there is whether there is a property right ok yes yes yes basically our contention is that mr thomas received two different appointments an appointment for being the president of the of the commission and as a commissioner this of course we know that yes how is this case like and i don't like rivera  is exactly the same yars the legislature or at least that's what the legislature purports to say whether it's a valid it is a state law question  d the state alleges we believe that the two thousand and thirteen amendment would be unnecessary i mean there was the commissioners the law states a six year term six year fixed didn't the prior case have to do with the abolishment of a position and then at these from the puerto rican supreme court's opinion the we creationists of the very same remove is restricted or the legislature removes that restriction and says no governor you're not restricted by a six year t and that and that's why we really believe that it's the same analysis because when the supreme court ruled in the scarcity you said that when the effect of the legislation is soley to choose to continue someone in an office although i suppose it's unlikely if there are different political parties involved but it doesn't necessarily follow merits of the case and what was the argument to dismiss the first amendment that he's has not protected to the first amendment and that he doesn't meet the crate and then we went into the merits that he doesn't need to create to your firm for political