Biden Officially Nominates Ketanji Brown Jackson For Supreme Court
If, and that’s a big IF, all Republican opposed her nomination to SCOTUS, that would result in a 50/50 split, and a constitutionally uncertain issue whether VP Kamala Harris could cast a tie-breaker.
UPDATE 10:06 AM ET: Biden makes the announcement:
I’m proud to announce that I am nominating Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve on the Supreme Court. Currently serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, she is one of our nation’s brightest legal minds and will be an exceptional Justice.https://t.co/iePvhz1YaA pic.twitter.com/Nzqv2AtN8h
— President Biden (@POTUS) February 25, 2022
Previous Reporting….
Multiple media outlets are reporting that Biden will nominate DC Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to fill the vacancy created by Justice Stephen Breyer’s announced retirement. Breyer, you will recall, has said he only will step down if and when his successor is nominated and confirmed.
Jackson’s nomination is no surprise, she has been on the short list for a long time, and was recently elevated to the DC Circuit for the obvious purpose of giving her SCOTUS credentials, as we reported almost a year ago, Here Come The Biden Judges, Including His Likely Eventual SCOTUS Nominee:
— Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, 50, for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Jackson, who is Black, would fill the vacancy created by Judge Merrick Garland’s move to lead the Justice Department. She has served on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia since 2013. President Barack Obama had considered Jackson for the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016. Biden has promised to nominate a Black woman for the high court if he has the opportunity to do so.
This nomination, if it happens, bucks the demand of Rep. Jim Clyburn, who wanted South Carolina District Judge J. Michelle Childs. Remember, it was Clyburn who extracted Biden’s pledge during the campaign to nominate only a black woman to the next SCOTUS opening, Biden’s Pledge To Appoint Black Woman To SCOTUS Was Quid Pro Quo For James Clyburn’s Endorsement.
Substantial majorities opposed Biden’s pledge only to consider black women, ABC Poll: Only 28% of “Nonwhite Americans” Agree That Biden Should Only Consider A Black Woman For SCOTUS.
Jackson has an “impressive” record of reversals by the appeals court, when she was on the District Court.
Jackson was confirmed to the DC Circuit with only three Republican votes.
Collins, Graham, and Murkowski were the only Republicans to support Jackson's nomination to the DC court of appeals https://t.co/9PgOMMGdPp
— Daniel Horowitz (@RMConservative) February 25, 2022
If, and that’s a big IF, all Republican opposed her nomination to SCOTUS, that would result in a 50/50 split, and a constitutionally uncertain issue whether VP Kamala Harris could cast a tie-breaker (as she can do for legislation), as we covered in Remember When Liberal Law Profs Said VP Can’t Cast Tiebreaker On Supreme Court Nominations? I Bet Mitch Does.
We will have reactions as they develop.
Recently, the Arabella Advisors network has been increasingly vocal about the fact that Jackson was their preferred nominee—the one they are sure will rubber stamp their left-wing political agendas from the bench.
Today, Joe Biden is delivering exactly who they demanded. /2
— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) February 25, 2022
Maybe the only promise Joe Biden has kept is his pledge to nominate a liberal, activist judge to the Supreme Court.
Ketanji Brown Jackson is exactly that: a radical, left-wing activist who would rubberstamp Biden's disastrous agenda. pic.twitter.com/JhcA0JsIcD
— Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) February 25, 2022
If media reports are accurate, and Judge Jackson has been chosen as the Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Breyer, it means the radical Left has won President Biden over yet again.
The attacks by the Left on Judge Childs from South Carolina apparently worked.
— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) February 25, 2022
Not a huge surprise — Biden just picked the most extreme left-wing SCOTUS nominee in our nation’s history. Ketanji Brown-Jackson will make Sonya Sotomayor look like Sarah Palin. She’ll become the most predictable vote on the court — pro abortion, pro gender ideology, everything.
— Terry Schilling 🇺🇸 (@Schilling1776) February 25, 2022
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Boxes all checked, particularly the “bad leftist decisions” box.
But it would be “racist” to point that out, naturally.
No, the racist thing was refusing to consider anybody with a different skin colour.
I don’t know how good a judge she is, she’s a diversity hire and needs treating as such. I’m far from convinced she’s a good judge either.
With her high reversal rate, how can you say “I don’t know how good a judge she is”. She has demonstrated how good a leftist she is already.
Despite her poor record, look for the same trio that voted for her last time (Graham, Collins, Murkowski) possibly joined by a couple of RINOs like McConnell and Romney, to make her a shoo-in for a generation or two of leftist pap and decisions which ignore the Constitution.
Biden’s handlers must think the refusal rate is a positive. She is essential to create the new world order.
More and more, I am starting to think the – I think it was – the John Birch Society was right: Abolish the Supreme Court.
Stolen elections have consequences.
Grizz, I recall it as “Impeach Earl Warren”. They also pushed to “Support Your Local Police”. Bill Buckley probably did the right thing by pushing the Birchers out of conservative circles, but recent events have given a lot of credence to Birch positions that seemed paranoid or crazy at the time.
“Jackson has an “impressive” record of reversals by the appeals court, when she was on the District Court.”
She is not good, she is another Affirmative incompetent, her whole career based on unmerited advancement for racist reasons.
She’s not incompetent. She’s a dedicated ideologue. She’s determined to rule in accordance with her political beliefs. It’s not that she doesn’t know the law. She elects to ignore it.
Hey, hey, ho, ho,
Affirmative action’s the way to go,
Hey, hey, ho, ho,
Affirmative action’s the way to go,
Always received a government/taxpayer paycheck; never worked in the dreaded private sector.
Yep, she’ll be able to relate to the American spirit.
We can now rest who the president really is. It is Susan Rice, her puppet master is Jill Biden.
I agree, she has no business on SCOTUS but the reality is she will rule no differently than the guy she replaced. This does nothing to alter the balance on the court. With a senile old leftist as President we know that the outcome would be a lock step leftist and thats what she is.
“This does nothing to alter the balance on the court.”
It sure as hell extends the timeline of incompetence.
Aren’t Asians a minority anymore, or has the Harvard ceiling taken effect here as well?
Hocus pocus they are people of color whenever it serves the democrat agenda but at midnight they turn into a pumkin.
They’re only a minority for the purpose of blaming white supremacy when black people beat them up. In everything else they are too “white adjacent” to matter.
They get un-affirmative action when they apply to Harvard—deduct 200 points and throw the application in the reject pile.
It is not that they are too white, it is that they are too smart, are good parents and have good culture.
Biden explicitly promised Clyburn a black woman. It was a condition of Clyburn helping Biden beat Sanders, when it looked like it would go the other way.
Maybe that’s a promise that should be broken though.
The honorable thing for Clyburn to do would be to resign in disgrace over such an overt display of racism…but the words Honorable and Democrat seem to repel one another like Scottie Dog magnets.
I think Clyburn has a specific black woman in mind, and she ain’t it.
How can they be a minority? They are successful and have a low crime and illegitimacy rate.
We think al lot alike. These issues are so important to our and our children’s success.
Asians are “white adjacent” because for the most part they behave themselves and work hard. They only count as a minority when it is somehow useful to the left – and those times are few and far-between today.
We need people that understand we have a constitution not that they are more privileged than most Americans and still claim to be oppressed.
What people need to understand is that no matter how much we give them or do for them it will we never be enough.
That’s why we should stop. Stop it all, and all with about on hour’s notice. Get the riots out of the way, then let them be on their own. The Walter Williams’s, Clarence Thomas’s, and Alan West’s will do just fine. The rest can go back to shining shoes and pushing brooms while they whine about how bad they have it.
This is what comes from going beyond a hand up to massive hand outs. Allowing the to put on airs of success which was not earned was, and still is a huge mistake. This has lead to staggering inefficiencies throughout or society.
If Biden can nominate AND the Senate confirm a USSC Justice before a vacancy exists (which is Breyer’s demand before he steps down), why didn’t Trump have a bunch of justices nominated and confirmed already?
What would have been the point? There was no vacancy coming up, so what would have been achieved by such a move?
There is ALWAYS a vacancy coming up; it’s the timing that’s in question. Is there a law that says Breyer has to step down? I sure am glad we have a ‘separation of powers’ like the Constitution says and that the USSC is not a political weapon. There should be no official acts concerning appointments until a vacancy, in fact, exists. To do otherwise shows us all it is a sham.
No, there is not always a vacancy coming up. There have been periods with no vacancy for years. So tell me, what exactly would have been the point in Trump trying to have the senate consent in advance to his appointing certain people, if and when a vacancy should suddenly appear? What would have been achieved by such a thing?
RUFKM? Unless these justices are immortal, there is ALWAYS a seat to be vacated. Like I said, timing.
Breyer basically said, I’ll step down if you can guarantee you can fill my seat with a liberal. Do it before the US Congress flips to Republican control. If that happens, I’ll stay in my seat.
It sounds like he’s asking Brandon to set up a replacement before he steps down. If that can be done in advance, where are the time parameters set down in law?
That was a down vote, as it should be but for big thumbs
No, oldvet, there is not always a vacancy coming up. Entire presidential terms have elapsed without a vacancy. Carter never got a vacancy. Between Breyer and Roberts there was 11 years without a vacancy. So you can’t say there’s always one coming up.
So what would have been the point of Trump and the senate going through a nomination and confirmation, when there was no vacancy coming up, and there might not be one at all? Tell me what that would have achieved.
And why would anybody put themselves through that? What kind of idiot would they have to be? Go through the wringer, put your career and family at risk, and at the end of it you might go away with nothing?
There are no “time parameters set down in law”. The constitution is clear. Whenever there’s a vacancy the president can appoint someone to it, so long as he has the senate’s consent. There is no limit on when or how the senate may express that consent, and once it has consented that never expires and the president may take his own sweet time acting on it. Of course if he waits too long the senate may change its mind. Especially if there’s been an election and the incoming senators don’t like the nominee. And there’s generally no reason for him to wait. But there’s no reason he couldn’t if he felt like it.
I was thinking the same thing myself. What, if anything, stops Breyer from waiting until Jackson has been confirmed and then saying [ Rick Sanchez voice ] “Ha ha! Psych, b*tches! I’m not going anywhere!”
Now that I think of it, bribing Breyer to do just that and forcing the Dems to expend political capital on a damp squib would be hilariously Machiavellian.
Confirmation isn’t swearing in, nor is it a requirement afterwards.
Nothing stops Breyer from doing that, if he’s decided to suddenly turn MAGA. He could indeed decide not to resign after all, and thus there will be no vacancy for Jackson to be appointed to, and she and the Dems will have gone through the whole thing for nothing. They would have to wait and hope someone dies soon. But since he’s shown no signs of leaving the left, why would he do that to them?
IDK. The last time Republicans did this was when Sandra Day O’Connor retired. She officially retired hours after Alito was confirmed, January 31, 2006.
You pose an interesting question, notwithstanding the fact that Mulhouse doesn’t understand it.
Those 3 RINO and a few more will vote to confirm. They wouldn’t want to be accused of racism.
Do not count on Republican unity – those cowards are too far gone to do their job. All hail Diversity!
Gotta parse words here a bit
We have Republican unity. What people fail to often remember is that a RINO is not , never was and most likely never will be a “Republican”
A RINO is a Democrat who wears a mask all year long pretending to be a Republican. Every day is Halloween when you’re a RINO.
It’s just another one of those institutions that socialists have done a long march through.
The Judge is the Sister-In-Law of former Speaker Paul “Rotten” Ryan – this will bring in a herd of Rino’s
No, she isn’t. She’s his sister-in law’s sister-in-law. Or something. Her husband’s brother is married to his wife’s sister.
Milhouse why don’t you just start your own site? You have the answers to everything on every topic – The smartest man in the universe should be able to find some financial backing. You would be as popular as CNN.
Is what I wrote not the truth? Do you dispute it in any detail? What kind of person doesn’t want to know the truth? What kind of person doesn’t appreciate when someone informs them of the truth? What kind of person complains and insults the one who informs them?
What is the point, if it’s not her it will be some other leftist who ignores the Constitution. No need to get all worked up about this.
I’m glad he didn’t nominate exactly the judge Clyburn wanted, who probably would have been worse — this is assumption, I don’t actually know the records, but I cannot imagine Clyburn favoring someone who wouldn’t do a lot of damage. It would be racial “revenge” forever.
I used to think a long record on the Appeals court would be good, but Trump was only 1/3 with those. Gorsuch is great, Kavanaugh and Barrett are duds.
Trump was “duds” with most of his appointments, especially DOJ. IMO that is the single most important reason he is not still President. Christie instead of Sessions ….. Comey fired right away, no Rosenstein, no Wray, no Barr and no Mueller investigation.
But, the Trump-Regardless-ers want him back again. He’d be better than what we have now, but I think we can do better yet.
I could be misremembering, but from what I recollect reading, Clyburn’s preferred nominee has a much more moderate, and successful, judicial record.
Grizz, I recall it as “Impeach Earl Warren”. They also pushed to “Support Your Local Police”. Bill Buckley probably did the right thing by pushing the Birchers out of conservative circles, but recent events have given a lot of credence to Birch positions that seemed paranoid or crazy at the time.
They were right on both back then. Warren was a disaster. The police still were in place to maintain peace and order, not be trained dogs for those in city hall.
The nominee could be worse and she fits Breyer’s place Let’s see what she says at the confirmation hearings beyond promising to follow precedent
Oh, you’re funny. She’s going to cruise through confirmation hearings with the usual pap, can’t comment on pending decisions, etc… Then at least three Republicans will extend the traditional hand of bipartisanship and she will take her place as a rubber stamp for every Leftist decision for the next fifty years.
The only way she could be worse is by being younger. Breyer at least exercised some independence of mind on non-political questions. I expect that B-J will be a slightly less emotional So-So.
Oh no.
What unfortunate initials.
On Tribe’s claim that the VP can’t break a tie on a nomination, I’ll just repeat the comment I made last time:
I wouldn’t object to McConnell trying such a stunt just because the Dems deserve all the grief they can be given, but as a matter of law I don’t think there can be any doubt that the vice president does have the same tie-breaking power on nominations as she does on legislation.
Laurence Tribe seems to have lost whatever marbles he once had, and his opinion should be disregarded; he was wrong in 2020 and (assuming he hasn’t changed his mind now that there’s a Dem VP) he’s still wrong.
Morse is not stupid, but I don’t find his arguments plausible. In particular, the VP, in her role as president of the senate, is an Article I office holder, not Article II, so there’s no separation of powers problem. (See the Biden v Palin debate in 2008; Biden had clearly not read the constitution in a long time if ever, and he was talking bulldust). And of course in the original design of the constitution the VP was supposed to be the president’s chief rival, not his ally, so giving him this power would have made perfect sense.
“Laurence Tribe seems to have lost whatever marbles he once had, and his opinion should be disregarded”
Uti omni sella in pugna talea.
From 1801-1829, the president and vice president were from opposing parties. The way I understand how elections worked then, their were no paired “tickets”, rather, the top vote getter was P and the runner-up VP. Amusing to consider the concept of “tie-breaker” in the Senate when the VP belongs to the opposition party to the P. In that scenario, the tie-breaker had more to do with the minority voice of the people, than the parrot of the president. And a tie-breaker vote that supported the president was bi-partisan – in that the VP represented the minority.
And in fact the militia uprisings of 1800 were a direct consequence of this little constitutional inflamed appendix.
Translated to today’s terms, it would be as if Trump and Biden had tied exactly, so Congress had decided to award the election to… Beto.
What uprising of 1800? I’m not aware of one.
And no, under the pre-12th amendment rules, when Jefferson and Burr tied for president the house had to choose one of them. It could not choose anyone else.
Under the new rules, if nobody gets a majority of electors the house must choose from the top three electoral vote-getters. It can’t choose anyone else.
You have it backwards. Since the 12th amendment was passed the president and VP have always been elected as a team. They weren’t always from the same party — Lincoln and Johnson were elected as a national unity ticket, a Republican and a Democrat running together for the country’s sake. And of course they often didn’t get along at all once the election was over. But the days of the runner-up for president becoming vice president were from 1788 to 1800.
Jefferson and Burr tried to game the system by running together, in the expectation that Jefferson would get at least one vote from outside their core supporters, and thus would have more than Burr and be president, and Burr would be runner-up and vice president, but it backfired on them, since nobody outside their core supporters voted for either of them, and their own supporters all loyally voted for both, so they tied and Burr said “Hey, why should I settle for vice president?”. That’s why we have the 12th amendment.
Well, Clyburn got HIS promise from Biden. I’m still waiting for mine, that he would be “President of all the people”. So far, he is President of all the left and a panderer to minorities (trying to make up for his bigotry in the Senate?).
I would say Brandon is President of the FAR left. JFK would have been the uniting President Biden claimed he would be, if not a Republican.
Here’s what the constitution says: “The vice president of the united states shall be president of the senate, but shall have no vote unless they be equally divided”. That’s all.
It doesn’t say “on legislation”. It plainly says that the VP has a vote whenever the other senators are equally divided. A vote on whether to consent to an appointment the president wishes to make is a vote of the senate; therefore, if the other senators are equally divided, the VP gets to vote. End of story.
The constitution doesn’t say anything about separation of powers. And we know that the founders had no problem at all with a person serving simultaneously as secretary of state and chief justice. And the vice president is a senator, though usually a non-voting one.
(Likewise, while a sitting congressman can’t hold an “office under the united states”, the presidency is not such an office, so when a congressman is elected president there is no constitutional bar on him keeping his congressional seat. The fact that every congressman elected president has resigned is not because they have to, but because it would be insane to try to do both jobs. Being president is too hard for one person already; trying to be a congressman too is unthinkable. But it’s legally possible.)
You are correct on the separation of powers – the Constitution is silent. However, it was the intention of the founders that no one branch exercised power of or over the other. I realize now that there is no separation of powers in that the executive branch legislates through executive order, the legislative branch polices (an executive function) and holds trials (judicial function) and the judicial branch, in effect, creates law (legislates) by deciding which cases they will hear or not hear.
They intended that no branch exercise power over the others, but they had little objection to the same person being in more than one branch. They explicitly made the vice president a senator, they technically allowed the president to sit in congress, and they not just technically but actually allowed a cabinet secretary to sit on the supreme court.
That’s very clear. Thank you, Milhouse.
Thank you for the clarity.
To break a tie …
Roberts Rules of Order has the chair votes to make a difference….so if the vote is 8-7 in favor, and the chair votes against, the vote made a difference. Tied votes result in the motion being tabled and not acted upon. Voting to break a tie is vary different. Good insight you have shared.
I am assuming that aside from her melanin and estrogen levels, she is uniquely unqualified for this position.
In this particular case, the judicial record seems to bear that assumption out.
The purpose of affirmative action is to produce more affirmative which in turn produces more and more until the whole is leavened.
This is a giant step in that direction.
She will always be “the Black woman” in SCOTUS because she was obviously and demonstrably chosen NOT because of her track record but because of the color of her skin.
The only way to get rid of this stigma is to exhibit an exceptional performance, strictly applying the letter of the law and/or the Constitution.
But we all know that will not happen.
Well we did get Thomas and who knows how he now “identifies”.
Should’ve nominated Kamala.
She mixes legal incompetence, a poor personality and black racism as well as the best.
What a horrible combination. It will poison the court.
But she married a white man?
Another Harvard grad, enough said.
Ohio Historian: With her high reversal rate
Supreme Court Candidate Reversal Rates: “The rate at which Ketanji Brown Jackson and Michelle Childs have had their decisions reversed by a U.S. appellate court is much lower than for federal judges as a whole, according to data analyzed by Bloomberg Law.”
Here’s where I think Kamala HAS been positioned for SUCCESS.
She has shown America that choosing a person for a serious job based on their color and gender is an absolute disaster.
IF (and that’s a big if) the GOP digs in, they can block it and still take the house and senate in the fall.
Mean tweets have been replaced with Biden’s Putin tweets which haven’t aged well. I know dems are spoiling for a fight on this, but the GOP should not go along to get along.
But you absolutely know that they will go along, and there will be no getting along from the Left.
Subotai Bahadur
Of the three candidates who were interviewed, Jackson will make the worst Justice. Her background lies almost completely in criminal defense, which rarely reaches the SCOTUS docket these days, since most of the constitutional law in the field is settled and not much is required in statutory interpretation. She seems to have little if any private practice background. That’s why the left blocked Childs , who had the temerity to have represented employers in private labor practice. Her career has been conducted entirely in the D.C. swamp, so we can anticipate a complete apparatchik on the bench.
Perhaps she can be tutored by the “wise Latina”?
TY… Great points.
The hair says it all.
If we’re going by appearance, then, I think need someone on the court that has a bushy red beard.
The question before the court is, would a bushy red beard be counted as colored? That would have to be affirmative in order to take action.
Looking at Griz, I think he might be “uncolored.”
That raises an interesting point. Have you ever before heard as much about the need for SCOTUS justices to “represent” segments of the public? Little (if anything) is said about intelligence, competence, and a proven understanding of American law and constitutional principles. It’s become more important that they look like some segment of the population.
SCOTUS justices are not “representatives.”
Without taking a position on this nominee, what would happen if her nomination never made it out of committee or through the full Senate? Would President Biden be obligated to nominate a second black female jurist? What happens if the FBI background check or the ABA come up something that we did not expect?
Think about the risks involved in this approach.
This isn’t even a question. You know it’s going to be black women all the way down.
That is why I’m withdrawing my name from the list of candidates under consideration. As a older white straight man I have unique experiences that make me qualified but I’ll have to settle for pretending to know the law.
Well, now we have a name attached to the Affirmative Action nominee. That is what she is now and what she will always be, because that is what the pedophile declared before he named her.
Continuing President Brandon’s long tradition of reducing incompetent unqualified nominees to their skin color and genitalia:
Kamala Harris
Rachel Levine
Lloyd Austin
Sam Brinton
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Sen. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico claims he will have recovered from his Jan. 27th stroke and will be on the Senate Floor for the Supreme Court vote.
He’s been hospitalized a month now and will be released to in-patient rehab.
His verbal/cognitive skills seem to be fine (from viewing his video – though there did seem to be some editing done to it), so why so much hospitalization and in-patient rehab?
Plus, information has been very scant. I get the feeling we are not being given the whole story.
Will he be able to fly to D.C.?
Would anyone care to link to her cases and analysis of them?
So the provisional ruling junta now deigns to further corrupt the supreme Court.
She may be nominated, but she is not yet appointed.
Authored SC opinions now written in authentic ebonics.
I think the Republican strategy should be to refuse to take up the nomination until Breyer resigns and an actual vacancy exists. If Breyer refuses to resign, great, the nomination is stalled. If he does resign, then Republicans should attempt to stall the confirmation for as long as possible. While it is difficult to imagine a united Republican vote against confirmation, it might be possible for them to unite on the principle that the Senate should not begin any confirmation process until an actual vacancy exists.
I agree that the Republicans should try to stall as much as possible, just to make things difficult for the Democrats, but (1) it’s not up to them whether to take up the nomination; Schumer is the majority leader and thus in charge of the agenda. (2) there is no “principle that the Senate should not begin any confirmation process until an actual vacancy exists”. There has never been such a principle, nobody has ever even thought there was one, and the senate itself has explicitly denied that there is one, by confirming O’Connor’s replacement before she resigned. So by all means stall, but don’t make up principles that don’t exist.
Call it a principle, or call it a pretext, or call it a ham sandwich. I don’t care. The Republicans should resist any attempt to confirm a new justice before the sitting justice resigns. Re: the O’Connor replacement, things change. Once upon a time you could filibuster a nomination, now you can’t. “Pre-confirming” a justice was a bad idea then and it’s a bad idea now. A new principle is born.
I don’t agree that the Republicans should try to establish such a principle. The next Republican president may have occasion to do the same thing. But the Republicans should resist the Democrats to whatever extent they can, just because they can.
I’m still waiting for someone who thinks it would have been a good idea for Trump and the Republican senate to have confirmed some nominees in advance, just in case a vacancy would occur, to explain what the point of such a procedure would have been — what benefit they imagine that could have been achieved.
With Ketanji, the Supreme Court is now going to be 2/9 black, or a bit over 22% black.
The US population is 12 or 13% black.
So we have a pretty dramatic overrepresentation of black people on the Court. We don’t have a Court that “looks like America”, we will be getting towards the Detroit City Council with a few more race-based appointments.
Not that I’m complaining. You have to hit rock bottom before something is done.