court we moved on a number of grounds for state and under state and federal law for partial summary judgment on liability only issues on cross motion the defendants attack the complaint asserting that mr davidson yes when did federal law start requiring all politicians to be polite to each other that's what the complaint alleges that other elected politicians were not polite to your client when did it last start requiring politeness in politics usually the supreme court refers to political dialogue as free uninhibited robust and wide open and what your are arguing is that federal courts supervise the quality of political dialogue well when did that happen that this isn't about dialogue between politicians that's exactly what it is one politician called another politician a mean spirited and rude right it's pretty easy to imagine senator schumer calling senator mcconnell mean spirited and rude or the reverse and in fact i would be shocked if that hadn't happened in both directions the entry so we would then have crossed litigation with one senator's suing the other saying i'm not mean spirited and rude i might be rude but i'm not mean spirited that strikes me as so implausible role for the federal judiciary that i'm asking when it began so you were to my question give me the case where the federal court started saying we're going to supervise the quality of statements politicians make to each other i don't think this was a statement one to answer my question i asked you when this began show me when this began own ask can you do that no i'm conceding absolutely that i don't what we've got is the first time in the history of the republic that you're asking a federal court to start supervising the quality of the statements politicians make to each other how is that consistent with the supreme court's statement the political debate was supposed to be free uninhibited robust and wide open your honor if this is a political debate it would be i would have to ever salute very with you it was not it was the imposition of a process to make an adjudication about conduct it wasn't it was an expression of an opinion about you or in the statement that you are mean spirited and rude is nothing but an opinion it wouldn't be actionable under state libel law precisely because it's an opinion so you've got something that wouldn't be actionable is why people right or slander right but you think normal last violates the constitution of the united states and you concede that in the history of the united states you have no precedent to support it that's  if this is a statement of one board members opinion about another as being rude i would say that you're absolutely correct but it wasn't it was the imposition of a process and was a start under this supreme court said is that the individual has a right to expect of the fourteenth amendment that he will be dealt with fairly during the devastation of liberty it was imposed on your client right so what we're saying the supreme court said that it created the liberty to feel that the government is dealing with these unfairly when it imposes a procedure on so that  i mean it seems to me as it does to my co my my brother's that in every case cited any case he could cite there's also the well recognized protectable interest in in life liberty or property i can't possibly see see see that here well again the liberty is to feel that the government is as judgment is entered by the supreme court in kerry they're saying they may have no property interest in the education but because they may have well been properly suspended but they do have an interest in fair procedure the students in kerry yes we're facing suspension correct they had insisted yes right and it's pretty clear that that involves a protected liberty interest if it involves more than ten days of suspension right had been deprived of a protected liberty interest if you turned out that there was a perfectly legitimate reason for doing so that's why they only got the possibility of nominal runs right but they were in fact deprived of something that the supreme court recognizes as a liberty interest i don't see that in your case well by the time judgement enters in the us supreme court the property interest is still up in the the school poor soul we as a result of the process sedition here well that as it turns out that's a general opinion but the emails that began this process did ask for her removal from the board either through a forced resignation or for a vote from the board so when this process began her seat on the board was at stake even though it was later determined that  that probably was not a possibility but the procedure was instituted among other things for the purpose and look the only result here with that letter it seems to be she retained her position at that i your honor i have to disagree what it is what came as a result was that she suffered emotional depressed the distress because of the imposition the involuntary imposition of a procedure that was unfair why she was held up as mr alston was she was held up for humiliation and opprobrium in front of the community in fact  and if you can help me with that that the great well they had a case talks about what's an investigation and they have to say here the human rights commission and judge trying to order justice frankfurter pointed out oriented toward policy so that if the board of education it can mean a committee to look into the propriety of distributing campaign literature on campus at looked at areas of these behavior and made a report on that you could call that  a hannah investigation but if it's directed at the individual then it's an adjudication and that's clearly was the e mails that instances the process were about her all the adjudication the hearing was about her conduct board soley as a result of a process that will end on that you could be right your honor but she was subjected to a procedure that caused her emotional distress and we think of the kerry case thank you mr davidson thank you for th that there has never been alleged or in fact there never was any deprivation of a protected interest here on behalf of the either the plaintiffs in the think many of my points of an elucidated here by the questioning already i think it's clear there was no property interest at stake you can see that of course the ms manliest elected official had a property interest in her seat on the school board but it's also clear under the only school code that the only process to remove a school board member one is not through the school board itself but through the county level regional superintendent of schools which of course is not the process that was involved here as to liberty interests i think it's very clear that we don't have any kind of reputational injury rising to a stigma publicly denounced as being the molester of a stepdaughter and of attention even being an arsonist all through state action but without any actual alteration to legal status or any actual deprivation of a protected right our briefs but in the absence of any different vision here that implicate due process i think frankly no the further analysis is necessary ok i hear no questions thank you very much