Problem: That's right, I'm sorry, Justice. What I'm saying is not that it's the retrospectivity that makes the First Amendment argument troubling -- I mean, that drives our First Amendment argument. All I'm saying is, we have addressed the retrospective portion of CTEA, and so I'm saying in the retrospective portion of CTEA you would apply ordinary, intermediate First Amendment review, and you would ask --

Based on the paragraph above can we conclude that "We haven't addressed the retrospective portion of CTEA"?

A: No

Problem: Susan announced that she meant to stay home that morning -- a rare decision for Susan .<br>'' But I would rather not go to church this morning , Mrs. Dr. dear , '' she explained .<br>'' If Whiskers-on-the-moon were there and I saw him looking holy and pleased , as he always looks when he thinks the Huns are winning , I fear I would lose my patience and my sense of decorum and hurl a Bible or hymn-book at him , thereby disgracing myself and the sacred edifice .

Based on the paragraph above can we conclude that "Susan's house is in the city"?

A: It's impossible to say

Problem: A trio of jokes: -It's hard to say which of you is more wooden. -Why are you at Disneyland and Senator Warren is in DC? She's the one who still has a job. -One of the people in this photo is a dinosauric relic of American racism, best forgotten. The other is a cigar store statue.

Based on the paragraph above can we conclude that ""Senator Warren" is referring to Elizabeth Warren, a public figure."?

A:
It's impossible to say