s an exemption in this case it would have been almost exemption and alternatively we would also argue that doesn't apply then the results in this case was or  methodology or their approaches is better and explain the ziglar says specifically that the so i think you're going to have or you nice person as you are and diplomatic as you are that those sister circuits are or is this really hate the first impression because if this is not a case of first impression in our state authority come hell that result there that you're wasting your time it's not worth your time arguing but you're better start really working hard on the on button petition because we don't have the authority to to reverse the previous authorities of the circuit without going to the box process not you just comment on this before you go into the competing cases the disputed section where five twenty two and then sub paragraph to a has been with us for twenty plus start so in one nine hundred ninety four they put in place that the language that we're looking at today now the line of cases that support the common the common sense test has been in place since one nine hundred ninety seven congress felt that those line of cases or those decisions of the law or if they were wrong they certainly could have and would have gone back into the code and said that's not what we intended but they've le that the new interpretation was taken off the set of what they intended they most certainly would have acted on it because they've not been hesitant to do soarin do so on the baron or if i don't see why just the opposite might not be the case i mean these various are cases has already pointed out a pretty big flaw in the statute that seems like it would be easily correctable since there are a couple other places in the statute where they were four referred to the bank statute the debtors proportional interest so it seems like it would have been an easy fix and they didn't fix it and yet their case and their tastes going both ways to it so it's not all one sided and they don't fix it it's either they were unaware of it so maybe we assume nothing from that but it seems odd to me too that now here we are twenty years later and they've got these cases going both ways and they haven't fixed any well that looks like a pretty easy fix i've got to rely on congress and their ability to look at a problem and find a it i didn't think there was anything like that or you're arguing anything like that i'm just not sure it's clear congress is even aware of this issue they obviously were aware of the issues that caused them to amend the statute like you said making sure your creditors didn't overpower standers but they didn't it didn't seem to be directed at anything else well i would hope our congress would be aware of problems in the bankruptcy court because that one would think that's the sole purview of what the bankruptcy code originates from from current us talk about take in these type of case not to my understanding your honor so there really wasn't a conflict for congress to consider if the test has ruled and other circuits have so we the premise that oh there was all th that's why i brought up maybe let me requalify congress doesn't see a problem you've lost all your diplomatic cerebellum you know it's in response to that congress doesn't see a problem they clearly that's my point now let me ask you that numbers under your under the approach that the bankruptcy court took the the economic consequences for your client as i understand it was quite substantial would you walk us through the numbers i can wait we argued that a more proper approach would be to to have each one each one of the liens and we come back to the language of the statute your honor and get and this is in opposition to  the general or moral conscience i did not see that i looked at the other three circuits cases they don't seem to have built into their absurdity doctrine or if they did they ignored it none of them talked about that and property the language of the statute again is clear and unambiguous it's not subject to more than one interpretation where it says all congress in fact all the that's true that is not  abstract manner you have a color a and b who own property as husband and wife husband says is in i portion the homestead exemption and you pay the proportion i would call it the proportionate test i would order the term common sense to five or handle comes four for it but someone who was pilfered from the trust on hundreds of thousands of dollars and now walks away with a ton of cash in his pocket that might shock someone's moral sensibility your honor the trust has a ninety chargeable claim that is true under section  third as to be contrary to what congress intended the court may find any number of statutes to be foolish in their application but it is up to the legislature and not the courts to rewrite those statutes when the plain language i clear and unambiguous and the result is not again so gross as to shock the general moral conscience of the bill has not let me let me ask you because you keep coming back to plain language and there is a response to that that maybe a r light can get through the crock that is as you've heard from your opposing counsel the words the property that's a lot of the fives and your opposing counsel points to a couple of bankruptcy section codes five forty one  if interest in property it has done so expressing or is there anything in this case with the husband has agreed to pay all of the lives of the wife in her interest of the property doesn't have to pay mixture of a few there's nothing in the record that indicates that because it's not necessary to get that far out let me continue with my theoretical abstract so the most would get a divorce and under your approach he pays he gets still be looking at the same firm and what if she were to go to avoid judgement means in her case as well but it doesn't change the fact that the supreme court and this are in numerous instances has held that where the language of the statute is clear and the pronouncements of our of ours other circuits and then we can look at the other cases out of the bankruptcy courts and out of the a u s district cour one member of the supreme court used to be a former member of this court doesn't like the absurdity doctrine in a sense i want to publish cases in our court so why aren't why i want to tell us about what the supreme court thinks about these are new doctrine and what they might think about a case where we have part that it cannot possibly have been what congress intended it is not enough for the courts to determine that the outcome is foolish it is for congress to make that determination and why doesn't us need that the congress surely did not intend this result in this case select number of cases where there is a non filing far into the square the third of the doctrine is not attempted to be cited any of the other cases in which section five twenty two as is used to avoid the extent of a judicially when it impairs an exemption and why isn't that absurd because your honor it still is falling in line with congressional intent where it is applying the uniform arithmetic test that was enacted in one thousand nine hundred four when the statute was invented congress has had over twenty years to go back and change the statute to include additional language to ensure that it only relates to the debtors interesting property congress has not done so and no windfall to the debtor is contrary to congressional intent and