GOP Senate Judiciary Staffers Resist Miers Nomination:
From the New York Times:
As the White House seeks to rally senators behind the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers, lawyers for the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee are expressing dissatisfaction with the choice and pushing back against her, aides to 6 of the 10 Republican committee members said yesterday.
"Everybody is hoping that something will happen on Miers, either that the president would withdraw her or she would realize she is not up to it and pull out while she has some dignity intact," a lawyer to a Republican committee member said.
All the Republican staff members insisted on anonymity for fear of retaliation from their supervisors and from the Senate leaders.
. . .
"You could say there is pretty much uniform disappointment with the nomination at the staff level," another Republican on the committee staff said. "It is clear there is quite a bit of skepticism, and even some flashes of hostility."
Another Republican aide close to the committee said, "I don't know a staffer who approves of this nomination, anywhere. Most of it is outright hostility throughout the Judiciary Committee staff."
A shot across the bow? Anybody else wondering what embarrassing revelations lie ahead for Ms. Miers? I hope the Republicans keep in mind that no one's interests are served letting this process degenerate from a substantive critique of Miers fitness for the Court into a gutter-level series of smears and attacks on her character. A strong case can be made for the former without resorting to the latter. But, hoping for forebearance is almost certainly hoping for too much in this instance.
All the Republican staff members insisted on anonymity for fear of retaliation from their supervisors and from the Senate leaders.
This is not the first time staffers expressed fear for their jobs because of potential retaliation either from the White House or congressional leadership. What have we come to? This is not message discipline--it is pure fascism. They are suppressing legitimate dissent among their own--forget suppression of opposition outside the party! What next? Political exile? Concentration camps for political prisoners? Think of what might happen if this bunch gets their way and bans tenure in academia... I would not envy a stray liberal or libertarian should this plan come to fruition...
Can I assume you are joking? This is standard fare at every government office. The staff doesn't talk to the press without going through the public affairs people, and the public affairs people control the message from the top. So if people want to break those rules and talk directly to the press, they do it without using their names.
If this pick represents no one but the President's interests, that, well, it sounds...impeachable.
And that, well, it sounds . . . like hyperbole. If the pick represents no one but the President's interests, then unless the Senators are fools, they'll vote their own interests and vote her down. That's why the Senate votes on nominees, isn't it?
Re: the Republican staffers, wouldn't one expect, though, that there would be tension there? After all, one of the most distressing things we've learnt about Miers is that she looks askance at the Federalist Society. The Republican staffers here almost certainly have a heavy FedSoc presence. Why would they embrace with open arms someone like her?
No, it isn't. That is not what it says in Federalist Nos. 66 and 76. What I said sounds like hyperbole only to someone not well-versed in the original meaning of our Constitution.
It is indeed the president's personal pick, at least in that the initial selection of a nominee is vested in no one other than the president, and there are no mandated standards governing the president's choice. This is not to say that the American people do not have a voice in the process. At this point, the ball is in the Senate's court to consent to or reject the Miers nomination, and an effective response in opposition would be for dissatisfied voters to apply pressure to Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee, and let them know that a yes vote out of committee will result in a no vote and no support come election time. I'm not naive, and I hold out little hope that this will actually work, but this seems to be a more promising course of action than simply attempting to apply direct presssure to a president who is not facing reelection (the midterms are important, but they are not the same thing) and who has repeatedly demonstrated a steadfast refusal to admit a mistake or to capitulate on any issue, let alone one with which he is so personally associated.
I love the equivocating qualification, "at least in that". You know full well that I am not challenging the fact that the President has the initial selection. Indeed, he has the initial selection because it is a procedural safeguard. The Framers wanted a single person to select rather than a committee of diffuse interests to select. But it does not follow that the President has the initial selection as his own personage; to the contrary, he has the initial selection as an agent of the people and as a duty-bound servant of government. As Randy Barnett has already pointed out, he isn't supposed to appoint his cronies. He is supposed to appoint the best qualified persons, persons who would not be selected because a bickering and divided committee would choose a mediocre consensus candidate to satisfy their own self-interest. See Federalist Papers 66 and 76.
So it isn't his "personal" pick. The fact that you used the qualifier "at least in that" suggests that you tacitly agree.
Yes, I think a President who disregards his constitutional obligation to pick the best candidate should be impeached. Similarly, a President should be impeached when he declines to veto a bill he believes is an unconstitional encroachment by a tyrannical legislature. After all, that is what he has been vested with the veto power for. It's his constitutional duty.
That is not hyperbole. It's called conservatism.
After all, she's spent an entire career in the legal profession and is now on the verge of reaching a pinnacle in that arena; at which point she will be answerable to no one and susceptible to the 'rush' of finally being free to do as SHE pleases. Based on evaluating what little information is out there, it would appear that Miers has deliberately kept herself out of the limelight and controversies, has aligned herself with the 'powers that be' at the appropriate moments, and has deliberately kept her mouth shut so has not to be pigeonholed or 'Borked' at the last minute for whatever her next goal was. In the end, however she got there, no matter her qualifications, she IS there.
In some ways, assuming for the moment she is what Bush and her supporters claim her to be, I feel for her plight. I know what it's like to work decades for something and have it taken away from you at the last instant due to events or people out of your control or out on a vendetta. I also know what it means to be on the verge of achieving a long sought after goal and then having to 'get through' a last minute push to make it.
There comes a point, no matter how conservative or aggressive someone plays the game, that the individual has to be willing to push all their chips into the pot and see how the cards fall. To use another sports metaphor - they have to be willing to 'leave it all on the field because there is no tomorrow.' As it stands now, opponents are going to have to have something more than innuendo, invective, anonymous commentary, unsubstantiated inference, and temper tantrums to forestall or defeat Miers' appointment. If Miers can survive to the point where the Senate has nothing to hang a hat on insofar as demonstrable, gross incompetence, a slip as regards inappropriate agenda, or something catastrophic missed in the vetting process, then it comes down to Senators being willing to do their duty as they and their constituents see fit.
Yeah, I know. When was the last time THAT happened?
A conservative President would care that his actions clashed with our Founders' vision of what was the proper role of the Executive, but Bush is content to have his operatives -- on television, and even on this site -- trash true conservatives as sexist, elitist, and irrelevant to the political process. He is certainly content to let his wife talk over him on the Today show and air her reasons for Miers' selection, as if the First Lady were charged with selecting judicial nominees. While I am sure that Laura Bush would make a fine President in her own right, the fact is that I voted for her husband, as did many other conservatives. And we voted for him because we thought he had a coherent vision of what an Executive is supposed to be.
Indeed, in 2000 Bush ran on the theme of restoring integrity and honor to the White House. Having respectable public institutions is a public good. In 2004 he implied that his challenger lacked the steadfastness of an Executive who could protect us from danger. Having a safe and secure homeland is a public good. It is utterly hypocritical that a man who promised us public goods would convert a public office into a means to pursue his private interests. The Supreme Court is a public institution. I rebuke anyone who suggests that any reading of the Constitution consistent with originalist principles permits the President to turn the Supreme Court into a private institution. Such is not conservative.
It is not even American.
Perhaps it's wishful thinking on my part, but is it not possible that Miers will realize she is in over her head and fear that in the Senate hearings she will embarrass herself (and Bush) by knowing little more about Constitutional issues than a fresh law school graduate? In this case she, out of loyalty to Bush, could withdraw herself (although, the "to spend more time with my family" explanation may not be a good choice of excuses to use!).
I am rather dubious that one can make an argument that Bush's selection of Miers meets ANY credible standard, no matter the use of modern or originalist language, of the above, impeachable offenses. Further, I shall avoid the rather blatant opening to cynically expound on the potentialities involved in getting a Republican controlled Congress to impeach a Republican President based on the premise of Miers' selection somehow meeting the above standard.
More realistic would be a discussion, not of Federalist 66 &76 that is repeatedly cited above, but of Federalist 78. In this text Hamilton effectively provides a defintional understanding of the following criterion, some might say the "mandated standards governing the president's choice," for a Supreme Court Justice. The Constitution stipulates:
To read what Hamilton says about this, see my next post...
According to the plan of the convention, all judges who
may be appointed by the United States are to hold their
offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR...The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws...the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of powerI...and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their [the legislative and executive branches] attacks...A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law...the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents...It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental...It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature...The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body...That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws...It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge...Upon the whole, there can be no room to doubt that the convention acted wisely in copying from the models of those constitutions which have established GOOD BEHAVIOR as the tenure of their judicial offices...
What is the point? See next post...
Moreover, I think it plain that abrogating one's constitutional duty is either "treason" or a "high Crime," which is why, as I noted above, the claim that the President may convert the Supreme Court into a private institution "is not even American." Unpatriotic. Treason. Yes.
trea·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trzn)
n.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
A betrayal of trust or confidence.
[Middle English, from Anglo-Norman treson, from Latin trditi, trditin-, a handing over. See tradition.]
Has Bush committed treason by nominating Miers for the Supreme Court?
Yes.
There is your mandated standard!!!
Bush obviously feels he has found someone who has met that standard in Miers. You may accuse Bush of cronyism, foolishness, or even 'smallness' in his selection. But, you cannot, based on any factual grounds publicly known at this point meet the standards for impeachment. What you also must realize is that conservative pundits, Senate staffers, and participants in this board do NOT get to cast a vote on Miers' appointment.
You CAN, however, strongly urge the Senators to hold Ms. Miers to the standards laid out by Hamilton vis a vis the Constitution's language. Further, you CAN point out that you DO get to vote on Senators' reelection, Republican initiatives, local campaigns, et al. Finally, you CAN remind the would-be presidential candidates of '08 that you DO get to vote in the primaries and would remember who stands out from the crowd as regards the courage of their, or their constituencies', convictions. [Any other, practical suggestions might be greatly appreciated by people such as Brownback and Lott.]
Although there is nothing in this that will mitigate the fact that Miers, should she receive a YES vote from a sufficient number of Senators, there is something to the fact that 'vengeance is a dish best served cold.' And Senators should be reminded that it will be time to 'eat it' at some point.
Bill R: I don't know whether or not 'naive' or 'wishful thinking' would be the right terms. I suspect that Miers, feeling Bush is the brightest man she's met, that the Bush's are 'cool,' that GWB seems committed to her appointment, and that this is the daydream of many a legal professional come true, that there is little incentive for her to withdraw her name. Your thought that she might do so rather than 'embarrass' the President is predicated on a potentially erroneous, and at this point UNKNOWN, assumption that she is not competent enough to demonstrate a 'minimally necessary' competence.
That, too, is treason.
No, Hamilton limned their constitutional duties. But we are not talking about the constitutional duties of judges, but the constitutional duty of the President in nominating them.
As I have explained, your exclamation points to the contrary, Bush has committed treason by abrogating that duty. See Federalist Nos. 66 &76.
Of course, I can. The standard is mere "treason." See above.
That isn't true in the least. Based on what the White House has said in its conference calls, the President chose someone from a list the Senate Democrats promised to confirm. And that was only after all the qualified candidates bowed out because they -- according to 'sources' at the White House -- feared the confirmation process would be too vicious. It is obvious to any reasonable person that if Bush says "Miers was the best candidate I could find," then he is lying.
My feelings of betrayal stem from the fact that Bush could have selected more obviously qualified candidates. Thereby, tactically putting the Democrats on the defensive and avoiding the public airing of Republicans' dirty laundry; the result of which is a weakening, in the public's perception, both of the Office of the President and Republican candidates in '06 and '08.
That Sir, does NOT, by whatever Federalist Paper you wish to cite or by ANY legal argument meet the Constitutional standard of impeachment. Thus, YOU are attempting to placate your emotional angst by suggesting an inappropriate legal recourse and/or ramification. Further, YOU ignore the pragmatic realities alluded to in terms of a Republican controlled Congress impeaching a Republican President; not to mention the practical reality that, regardless of YOUR reading of select, Federalist Papers, Miers IS the nominee.
Given that impeachment does NOT logically follow the selection of a nominee who prima facie meets a 'minimal standard' of selection; given that your inference that the President has 'betrayed' his constituency is emotionally satisfying but not legally relevant; given the impracticality of an impeachment based on the above discussions; and given your lack of demonstrable proof vis a vis Miers' credentials and the President's selection process not meeting any standard of logic, legal relevancy or practicality, I would suggest that you might wish to be careful tossing about terms in a derogatory fashion - especially terms which obviously define the parameters of your own discourse. Particularly when your discourse is premised on 'alluded to' allegations by anonymous sources related to 'routinely ordinary' rules limiting government employees as regards their interaction with the press.
In simpler terms, if YOU wish to play with definitions, a non sequiter is defined as: "A reply or an inference which does not follow as the logical result of or that has no relevance to what preceded it." And, as we have just established, YOUR obstreperous adherence to and continual reply citing an inference of impeachable offense does not logically or legally result from the President's actions and has no relevance to what preceded it, namely the vague allusion, by anonymous staffers, to a pro forma rule of government employment.
Thus, we must proceed from that standpoint - not wasting further energy and time by railing about our emotional distress, quoting anonymous staffers, seeking easy euphemisms, or prosyletizing irrelevant and nonfactual issues. Wailing over a standard of selection premised in an individual reading of Federalist 66 &76 is a futile, irrelevant, and logical digression from the immediate reality. As a consequence, our duty as citizens is clear. We must somehow communicate to the Senators and Miers herself that she MUST demonstrate a meeting of those standards and judicial philosophy laid out by Hamilton in Federalist 78. If Miers can meet these standards or if she does not meet these standards, we must furthr impress upon the representatives of the people that they will be held accountable accordingly.
I am not a legal realist. I am a constitutional conservative. I am an originalist. Other than someone who resorts to petty ad hominems (e.g., emotional, hyperbolic, etc.), what are you?
I did not say here that she was unqualified. My point is that the President has the constitutional duty to select the best qualified nominee. She is clearly not best qualified, as you concede, in the same sentence where you assert that Bush has committed treason:
My feelings of betrayal stem from the fact that Bush could have selected more obviously qualified candidates.
Thanks for proving my point. Enjoy the cognitive dissonance!
There is no "wailing" here, but thanks for the ad hominems. Let's quote:
66.
It will be the office of the President to NOMINATE, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to APPOINT. There will, of course, be no exertion of CHOICE on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves CHOOSE they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President.
76.
The sole and undivided responsibility of one man [the President] will naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation. He will, on this account, feel himself under stronger obligations, and more interested to investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who may have the fairest pretensions to them. He will have FEWER personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may each be supposed to have an equal number; and will be so much the less liable to be misled by the sentiments of friendship and of affection. A single well-directed man, by a single understanding, cannot be distracted and warped by that diversity of views, feelings, and interests, which frequently distract and warp the resolutions of a collective body. There is nothing so apt to agitate the passions of mankind as personal considerations whether they relate to ourselves or to others, who are to be the objects of our choice or preference. Hence, in every exercise of the power of appointing to offices, by an assembly of men, we must expect to see a full display of all the private and party likings and dislikes, partialities and antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are felt by those who compose the assembly. The choice which may at any time happen to be made under such circumstances, will of course be the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other, or of a compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight.
Again, 'disappointment,' 'skepticism,' and 'hostility' do not a standard of impeachment make. Defining treason as a perceived betrayal of a portion, no matter how undocumentably large, of the President's Party is NOT a legal argument for meeting the Constitutional standard, nor is it a logical one in that not ALL 'conservatives' evidently agree with YOU; at least agree enough to publicly stand in opposition to Miers' appointment. Simply put, you are attempting to force your emotional reaction to Miers' nomination into a legal standard which meets neither the defitional intent of the term 'treason' as regards the Constitution, nor the intent of the 'impeachment' standard in which it is placed.
For further information on impeachment, might I suggest...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm
I'll say it again. EMOTIONALLY, many, including myself, AGREE with you insofar as Bush's apparent, but as yet, unproven breach of faith with his base constituency. However, illogical, legally irrelevant, and obstreperous non sequiter hyperbole is NOT illuminating or informative.
So, the real question is, how shall we constructively proceed from where we are at, to wit:
Given the dissatisfaction being presented by pundits, staffers, and members of this board, how do we REALISTICALLY, LEGALLY, and LOGICALLY proceed in helping Senators to 'do their duty' and hold Miers to the standards held forth by Hamilton and others?
The text supports my view. But then, I am not a realist.
Shame on me, for being a constitutionalist.
They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves CHOOSE they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President.
Treason is a word with plain meaning. I provided three definitions -- including its Latin root; it's original meaning -- not one; certainly not the only one most convenient to your realist attempt to psychoanalyze your opponent. (More cheap ad hominems on your part.)
Furthermore, I am an originalist -- the original public meaning of the Constitution is my thing, but the private intent of the specific Framers is not. So all your talk of intent is absolutely irrelevant. Ergo, fallacious.
I am not a constitutional constructivist, either.
Apparently you are a:
1. realist
2. constructivist
3. psychoanalytic
4. non-cognitivist
5. ad hominem hurler
6. who believes in original intent, as opposed to original public meaning
7. and eschews plain meaning of texts
You do not seem to be a conservative at all. Perhaps you meant to post at DailyKos?
As for the President's obligation as per Federalist 66, he has fulfilled his duty to NOMINATE.
As to Federalist 76 -
He has stated that HE feels that he has, after reviewing the pool of potential candidates, selected the individual with the requisite qualities. YOU and others may not agree with this. But, there is NO stipulation here that YOU must agree in the nomination.
'Less liable' but not 'prohibited from.'
I strongly suggest caution here in that it is a perceptual litmus test of judicial philosophy vis a vis 'originalist' or 'constructionist' precepts and the promise of the President to select appointees who subscribe to these philosophies which actually premises the emotional dissatisfaction framing your argument.
This last is precisely the problem and the reason for reliance on the process you cite from Federalist 66, i.e.,:
You have no way of knowing, at this point, whether Miers is or is not going to meet this Senatorial test. Further, you have failed to establish, based on these citations, ANY logical or relevant argument demonstrating an impeachable offense.
As for your complaint regarding 'ad hominem' attacks in my posts... I have been the one continually appealing to your reason and sensibilties rather than relying almost exclusively on social prejudice and emotional argument.
To that end, I end my participation in, what has become, a tangential discussion related to the Kerr's original premise.
Bush has said that he believes Miers was the best qualified candidate. But even you recognize that this claim is, as you put -- obviously -- false.
Enjoy the cognitive dissonance!
LOL. There is no Senatorial "test". They vote Yes or NO. That's it. The duty to select the best qualified candidate is wholly on the President. The failure to do so is a breach of his constitutional duty, and the breach of a constitutional duty is treason by any definition. I see you finally understand my point.
By the way, without re-engaging, you might want to note the "obviously" in my commentary regarding qualifications. Again, that's the problem and the source of our angst. We do not KNOW.
As for the President's obligation to select the "best qualified." Again, as you have pointed out above, it is the President's duty to NOMINATE based on his perception of the 'requisite qualities.' It does not say that they have to be 'better than' but only that they must meet the 'requisite qualities.' Therefore, you must refer, not ignore as non-sequiter, the 'requisite qualities' as stipulated by Hamilton in Federalist 78.
Finally, there is a fine line between the definition of 'cognitive dissonance' and 'confusion.' Based on the proper, clinical definitions, Bush has created much CONFUSION within his base. But, I'll admit to understanding what you mean. Although, understanding and emotionally sympathisizing is neither a legal argument nor a logically relevant one.
Sorry if this failure to insert prior to signing off creates some confusion.
No, I don't. As I noted above, 78 limns the constitutional duties of judges, whereas 76 and 66 limn the constitutional duty of the President. You like the words "requisite qualities," but those "requisite qualities" refer back to the "intrinsic merit" that would be out of sight in selecting nominees if the Senate had the power to do anything more than ratify or reject. So the text you cite only disproves your contention that there is a "Senatorial test" and you still haven't reconciled the fact that "instrinic merit" is not consistent with "minimal qualifications" -- nevermind the fact that you can't know whether the woman has minimal qualifications if -- and this is you verbatim -- "We do not KNOW."
Your reading of the relevant texts makes no sense. The cognitive dissonance I referred to is your continual insistence on pushing the boundaries of your interpretation's incoherence, which is now on display for the readers of this blog.
And that's exactly what I hope the Senate does here. It doesn't have to exercise that check by impeaching the President -- it can exercise it much more easily by withholding consent.
That's a rather stricter standard than what you've been advocating.
I'm waiting to hear how living constitutionalists are Enemies of the United States.
I didn't say rejecting the nominee was a bad option.
I didn't say rejecting the nominee was a bad option.
Why, so do I! But then, I'm not the one who thinks Bush committed treason with a bad nomination. How *are* they Enemies of the United States?
Would this be the same Senate Judiciary staff that Democrats and the NYT were foaming at the mouth about and accusing of all sorts of ethical breaches less than one short year ago? One minute, the staff's mere existence proves what a sleazy, scummy party controls the committee, and the next minute, they are a voice of reason to be quoted at length on how bad the President's judicial nominations are! Apparently, the only consistency at the NYT is whether it hurts BOOOOOOOOOOSSSSHHHHHHHHH!
I never cease to be amazed at how quickly people can change their tune in this town.
Nick
Whats your beef? Treason? Sure go for it. I am sure you will bring treason charges against the person that represents you in the House of Representitives.
A Representitive Republic. That’s it. That’s what we got..
Now please define the qualifications for SCOTUS. Near as I can tell, A citizen. That’s all. Nothing more. That fills the qualifications. ‘The best Qualified Candidate is subjective to POTUS. Your only vote that counts are POTUS, Your two senators, and the one member of the House you get to vote on. You can type till your fingers bleed. That’s it. That’s all all you get.
I guess POTUS nominating his brother would be better, after all, everyone liked it when it happened.