Below is my column in Fox.com on the recent decision of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro to join the ranks of Democrats calling for packing the Supreme Court. It is a disappointing moment for many of us who hoped that Shapiro could offer a moderate voice in the upcoming elections, resisting the rise of socialists and communists in his party. Instead, he proved to be just another politician thinking of the next election rather than the next generation.
Here is the column:
Gov. Josh Shapiro (D. Pa.) has finally reached his Terry Malloy moment. In the classic movie, On the Waterfront, the character tells his brother of losing it all; his shot to be a champion and a person of respect: “You don’t understand! I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I could’ve been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let’s face it.”
Shapiro decided to deliver his defining moment on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe” when he abandoned all principle and decided to join other Democratic establishment leaders in offering up the Supreme Court to the radical left. Shapiro used the common coded reference to court packing, calling for “radical reform of the Court.” The only “radical” reform being seriously discussed is packing the institution with an immediate liberal majority to reverse a series of recent decisions and to greenlight an equally radical agenda for changes to our political system.
What is so disappointing is that Shapiro could have truly been a contender, an alternative to the cringing, accommodating politicians who are yielding to the demands of the mob. Figures from Kamala Harris to Pete Buttigieg have recently embraced the scheme to show their bona fides to a rising socialist and radical movement in the Democratic Party.
Shapiro could have been different. He could have offered the country moderation and pushed back on the radical elements of his party. Shapiro was reportedly rejected as a vice presidential candidate due to being Jewish and is a member of a party that is careening toward open anti-Semitism. He could have been that mature voice in his party cautioning restraint before destroying one of our core institutions.
Instead, he chose to just be another bum in American politics.
Shapiro told MS NOW:
“I think we need radical reform that’s actually going to ensure that the voices of the people are heard from, that the voices of the people are represented in the three branches of government. We don’t have that right now.”
The comment echoes the remarks of other court-packers like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who insisted the court was illegitimate for rendering decisions against “widely held public opinion.”
The Supreme Court was never designed to be the “voice of the people.” On the contrary, it was meant to be a countermajoritarian check on the people’s impulse. It is that body that is designed to stand against the majority to protect minority interests and to maintain a constitutional system meant to blunt popular impulse.
In my book, Rage and the Republic, I discuss how the Framers sought to avoid a direct democratic system, which had failed repeatedly in history. These systems (based on channeling public demands) became what Benjamin Rush called a “mobocracy.” The Supreme Court plays a vital part in preventing our Republic from destroying itself.
For years, professors and pundits have quietly urged a hostile takeover of the Court to remove the barrier to fundamentally changing our system. Now, on the 250th anniversary of our Republic, they are close to getting their way.
Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.
Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder has put packing the Supreme Court front and center, explaining, “[We’re] talking about the acquisition and the use of power if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028.”
James Carville declared, “If the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, I think on day one, they should expand the Supreme Court to 13. F— it. Eat our dust. Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it.”
Now Shapiro has joined these ignoble ranks.
Shapiro and others are demanding the radical reforms despite the current Court repeatedly ruling against the Trump Administration, including most recently on birthright citizenship. Without acknowledging that the decision again showed the Court’s independence, Shapiro griped, “this case should have taken a nanosecond to decide and it should have been nine nothing.”
What does that mean? Should the courts not have heard arguments, or should the Supreme Court have issued an immediate ruling from the bench during oral arguments?
Nevertheless, that is enough for Shapiro to toss the Court to the mob. It is transparent and frankly pathetic.
Shapiro added that too much power was being given to the Executive Branch. This is a court that just ruled against the President on issues from citizenship to tariffs. It has drawn sharp rebukes from President Trump for curtailing his powers.
Now Shapiro appears ready to repeat his controversial move against his neighbor and exercise a type of adverse possession against the Court. However, he lacks the courage (as do figures like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries) to come out and call it court packing. They simply refer to “radical” changes.
It is part of conditioning voters to the type of structural changes contemplated by the left to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” Most voters still oppose court packing. You have to wait until voters are angry enough to take a hammer to a system that remains the oldest, most stable democracy in history.
The Court could well fall in the coming years to this mad frenzy, but it will be preceded by the fall of figures like Josh Shapiro. He and his establishment colleagues are deluding themselves into believing that they will be spared in this mobocracy that they are making.
Refusing to have his state participate in the 250th celebration on the Mall and offering up the Supreme Court will not appease an increasingly violent and anti-Semitic far-left movement.
Despite his own pandering to the mob, the socialists recently chanted “you’re next” when they saw Jeffries’ image on a screen at a New York victory party.
Yesterday’s armchair revolutionaries like Josh Shapiro will soon be treated as today’s reactionaries by the very mob that they are trying to enlist. What will be left is a lament of what Shapiro could have been at this moment in our history. As Terry Malloy said, he “coulda had class. [He] coulda been a contender. [He] could’ve been somebody.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child
Well, it was fun. but not anymore.
_____________________________
Establishment Democrats’ support for Graham Platner is cratering. A woman came forward on Monday who accused the Democrat Senate candidate from Maine of raping her five years ago while they were dating. Platner, whose campaign has been rocked by scandals, recently assured Democrats that there were no more on the horizon. Oopsie!
It cracks me up, that he, as a Jew, thinks they don’t hate HIM. Josh already had his Governor Mansion attacked with his family sleeping inside, yet thinks he can make them happy by agreeing with them, when they don’t care…they will get him too. Mr Shapiro needs to get ahold of reality.
Professor…..This is one of your BEST posts, ever!
I beg to differ. His best post would have, could have, should have been about the repeal of the 17th Amendment. That fact alone would have stopped stupid talk about packing the court and doing away with the electoral college. It was supposed to be people had the house, states had the senate and we all had the executive and judicial branches. Now, with states out of the picture that body gets packed with the Kamalas, wannabe Indians like Elizabeth Warren, wannabe Vietnam vets like Richard Blumenthal, fake patriots who talk one way on the campaign trail and do a complete double cross in the Senate, and a lot of other fakes and what that means is this, if the communists finally do take over, kiss the republic goodbye.
he might be a nice Jewish boy, but anyone standing with the organized crime racket known as the democrat Party is immediately covered in BM.
by the way, as to your use of ‘On the Waterfront’…Elia Kazan named names before the HUAC during the ‘Hollywood Ten’ hearings about Communists in Hollywood, making himself a permanent pariah in Hollywood even up to this day. the salient point of the movie is Terry yelling, “I’m GLAD I told!” referring to dropping a dime on Rod Steiger, his mobbed-up brother.
that’s the reason for the movie. further, Arthur Miller begged to disagree, and so he wrote ‘A View From the Bridge’ in which the older brother is condemned for telling the immigration authorities about his sister’s illegal hunky boyfriend to get him deported. that’s the point of that play: you don’t tell!
interesting, eh wot?
https://youtube.com/shorts/pN_sg8HmgYA?is=fF-jNPMYQBwypIs3
This is what surrender looks like, Josh.
When we discuss what the founders may or may not have thought, a refer reference to the Federalist Papers might be useful.
“[A] limited Constitution…can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing…To deny this would be to affirm…that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] forbid.”
*. The people visiting the US for games posted many you tube videos. They were enthralled eating the foods. Chicken fried steak and BBQ beef were hits. The abundance seemed to be unimaginable and they loved the US. They enjoyed their visit.
Americans being gracious. ☺
They also enjoyed seeing many parts of America.
I wonder how many checked into a US hospital to deliver and take back home a little bundle of American citizenship?
According to EMT reports McConnell was found unresponsive and required CPR.
No updates on his condition, and rumors are flying that he is brain dead and being kept alive on life support.
If he is he is brain dead, then of course he is still functioning at his normal level.
So funny I forgot to laugh.
I guess this is the “normal level” of liberal lack of wittiness.
You failed to post this report. Could it be because they just don’t release these.
Was the EMT level 1, 3 or 3.
Speaking of collapse, McConnell seems to have not only been removed from the gaming table he’s been removed from Trump’s little black heart.
^ Call a waaaaambulance for this poor baby ^
And what was Elaine doing with the CCP in China 3 days after her husband applied for membership at the hospital?
Turley’s references to “On The Waterfront” are convoluted. Only someone determined to make a movie comparison would have shoe-horned such a link.
Turley’s comparison reminds me of the Frank Sinatra movie, “Man With The Golden Arm”. There was that scene where Sinatra’s character, a drummer addicted to heroin, goes to audition for a jazz group. But his hands are so shaky he fumbles the drumsticks.
Turley is like Sinatra’s drummer. His hands are shaky at the computer keyboard as he strains to think of famous movie characters to link Josh Shapiro with. So Turley drums out, “On The Waterfront” with the hope that Estovir’s sock puppets will make the link stick.
Instead of cursing the darkness, light a candle. What movie analogy or comparison would you have made.
If you include this kind of information, your comments will be much more interesting to read. As it is, they come across as bitter and mean-spirited. Of course, perhaps that’s your goal. Experience on this blog teaches that that is, in fact, the goal of many anonymous commenters. But perhaps not. How you respond to this response will show what your goal really is.
Old Man, there’s no comparison between Shapiro and Brando’s character. More than half the country views the court’s Federalists as tools of far-right, billionaire political donors.
Shapiro is in the mainstream on this.
Anonymous – what do you mean by “Federalists”? Judges who interpret the Constitution according to its text and history, without pretending it is a “living document” that can be judicially altered to fit modern conditions? If half the country finds that extreme, then we are in serious doo-doo.
And are you really that mentally lazy that you can’t come up with a movie title to fit your understanding of the situation. Maybe Mainstream (2020), or The Land of Steady Habits (2018), or The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012), or The Truman Show (1998)?
Old Man, the Constitution is like The Bible. Any fool can find a verse to support their ideas no matter how radical.
Anyone who thinks this court has exclusive insight into the constitution is a fool.
I am aware that that is the mantra on the left, but it’s intellectually lazy and dead wrong, as to both the Constitution and the Bible. Otherwise there would be little point in anyone spending time in law school or seminary. In fact, there’s an entire science called hermeneutics in which scholars much brighter than you or me have come up with ways of reliably construing the meaning of texts, whether ancient or only 250 years old. With the Constitution, the relative newness of the document also helps in that we actually have records of debates that accompanied the drafting and ratification of the foundational law, not to mention other comparatively recent historical evidence about what was intended by the words – e.g., laws passed around the same time.
Old Man, every session this court finds excuses to overturn precedent. And typically their excuses are bogus. In almost every case the precedent made more sense. That’s a sign change is needed.
I realize you want change, but saying change is needed is fundamentally inconsistent with your position one comment ago that the Constitution is whatever a fool makes of it.
Saying change is needed means the current group of Scotus judges are getting the Constitution wrong. But to say they’re getting it wrong, is to say that there is a right answer.
OTOH, one comment ago you said that “the Constitution is like the Bible – any fool can find a verse to support their ideas.” Under that view, there is only power. And what you mean is that you want judges to pretend the Constitution means those things that are consistent with my subjective policy preferences, and not those things that are consistent with my opponents’ subjective policy preferences.
Question to some third party: is Anonymous sea-lioning here?
Old Man, at John Roberts confirmation hearing, he actually stressed the importance of upholding precedent. Then Roberts went on to gut multiple precedents.
This court is just doing whatever the hell it pleases while claiming constitutional insight. Any court could do that (if its shameless enough).
You keep shifting the subject. When I point out your logical flaw, you just ignore it and move on to some other topic. I even gave you examples of movie titles you could have used, but you just ignored that.
Roberts was in the minority who thought Roe v Wade should not be overturned. So you have to be specific about which precedent you think he improperly voted to overturn before any rational discussion can occur.
It is also widely acknowledged that the Warren court went hog-wild with inventing new rights and ignoring the actual text of the Constitution. If the current Court corrects some of those errors, that is a good thing. Roe v Wade is a great example. It was an illegitimate decision the moment it was handed down, and its rejection was long overdue.
Ultimately, all arguments you make are meaningless unless you cite the provision of the Constitution that is at issue, and explain which decision misinterpreted it, and why the Court’s intepretation was in error. Everything else is just blowing hot air and making unsubstantied generalizations that are not worth discussing.
My conclusion: at this point, you are definitely sea-lioning. Unless you have a specific decision to discuss, I am done.
Classic oldman move here that he pulls time and time and time again when he realizes he is cornered.
When he realizes he is cornered, he simply disengages and takes on the air of being victorious, even though he he no rational response to offer.
I left the door open for discussion if you had any specific cases or parts of the Constitution you wanted to discuss. I said that I was not willing to continue to engage based solely on generalizations with no meaning. I said that you could prove me wrong about sea-lioning by being specific about what you wanted to talk about. But you chose to prove me right.
In our system SCOTUS justices are never wrong. They are appointed and confirmed by those we elect. Therefore they are doing the will of the people. It doesn’t matter if its Plessey v Ferguson or Roe v Wade. The decisions reflect the will of the people who elected the President and Senators. This produces slow orderly change thus avoiding the violence and bad outcomes of the French Revolution. Our revolution is on going and comparatively peaceful.
To the contrary. Only fools believe that they can find a verse in the bible or a section of the Constitution to support their ideas no matter how radical.
When you begin with name calling you’ve already lost.
So you are a fool then.
Thanks for providing an example of someone determined to use a movie comparison.
Well one thing is for sure. In the future when someone writes “Profiles in Courage – Vol. 2,” Shapiro won’t be in it. BTW, Josh, you sold your birth right for a cold and empty bowl of porridge. Despite having cratered, the far Leftist you tried to appease won’t like you a speck more. After all, you described the experience of having been “a past volunteer in the Israeli army” when you were younger. That alone will disqualify you for support for any higher position in your wacky party.
CNN – It’s a movement that appears set to push the Democratic Party further to the left. Yet the tenets of socialism — much less democratic socialism — are still far removed from the communist ideology that Trump has loudly, and inaccurately, portrayed as a rising threat.
CNN lies.
Seizing the means of production and seizing private property are not socialist policies, they are communist policies and Mamdani has espoused both.
Zohran Mamdani’s new NYC tenant advocate called to ‘seize private property,’ blasted home-ownership as ‘white supremacy’
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s newly appointed tenant advocate called to “seize private property” and blasted home-ownership as a “weapon of white supremacy” in a series of pro-Communist social media posts.
“Seize private property!” she said on June 13, 2018.
New York City mayoral frontrunner Zohran Mamdani touted his “end goal of seizing the means of production” during a 2021 Young Democratic Socialists of America conference.
And the way in which power engages us now, it is very critical for all of us to remember what it is that we are fighting for, and to remember that our agenda is an agenda that must not be dictated by calculus, but by conviction,” said Mamdani. “And what I mean by that is that the many things that we believe, some of them are already popular in this moment. Right now, if we’re talking about the cancellation of student debt, if we’re talking about Medicare for all ,you know, these are issues which have the groundswell of popular support across this country. But then there are also other issues that we firmly believe in, whether it’s BDS, right? Or whether it’s ‘the end goal of seizing the means of production’, where we do not have the same level of support at this very moment.”
All communist are socialist, don’t let the label fool you they are the new Bolsheviks. They will take your property, they will take all your money, they will take your labor and return nothing but repression.
JT, You have become a very, very sad specimen of a human being.
A respected and sought-out constitutional scholar, versus an incel troll sitting in mommy’s basement going on that scholar’s blog to insult him. It’s not very difficult to tell which of the above is a sad specimen of a human being.
I love headlines…
“Mitch McConnell’s Office Won’t Confirm If He’s Conscious”
I can answer that for them. Nope.
He has not been conscious for a very long time, years in fact. But hey, he is just another in a long list of washed up Republican that thought they could trust trump.
^ Call this annony a waaaaambulance ^
if it wasn’t for McConnell, we’d have Justice Merrick Garland.
Who cares if there’s a hundred Supreme Court Justices. It still comes down to the Solicitor General – The Gate Keeper.
That’s the position to protect.
A.I. ( Solicitor General’s Job duties )
The Solicitor General is the government’s chief appellate advocate, representing the state or federal government in high-level courts. Key duties include deciding which cases to appeal, determining the government’s legal positions, and personally arguing or supervising cases before the Supreme Court and appellate courts.
Primary responsibilities of the Solicitor General generally involve:
• Supreme Court Advocacy: Preparing petitions and briefs, and conducting oral arguments for the government.
• Appeal Authorizations: Reviewing adverse lower court rulings and deciding whether the government should appeal or accept the decision.
• Amicus Curiae Participation: Determining when the government should intervene or file “friend of the court” briefs to protect broader state or national interests.
• Legal Counsel: Advising the Attorney General and other government agencies on significant constitutional and legal matters.
Ref.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor_General_of_the_United_States#Significance
First off the only people the modern left hates more than those that disagree with them are those they consider apostates to their ideology. Shapiro undoubtedly knows that. If you don’t toe the line you get stampeded.
Second, yes he could have been, but perhaps he never was. Perhaps, like so many others I think, he is finally showing himself for what he has always been.
Does MAGA tolerate any Republicans who disagree with Trump?? ..NO..!!
There are many, many, who are tolerated. J.D. Vance for starters.
You miss the point. The Dems are getting ever more extreme. It is in the nature of extremists to have purity tests and excommunicate those who are not as fervent to the religious cause. The lucky only get excommunicated. History teaches what happens to the unlucky.
The Trump phenomenon is qualitatively different. He has moved the GOP to the center and away from the right-wing extremes by embracing (for example) unions, lower-income workers (no tax on tips, no tax on overtime), America-first policies such as tariffs to support domestic factories, and many other things that would not have passed a purity test under the Reagan Revolution.
Trump can be heavy handed as a leader and not bow to politicial forces trying to move him leftward, which is why the Left hates him so much. But that stems from strong leadership of one personality, not an entire party moving to the extreme of the spectrum – which is what the Dems are doing with their program of embracing state socialism, radical Islam, and wokeness such as men in women’s competitive sports, drag queen story hour for children, and critical race theory, to name a few. It doesn’t take a PhD in political science to see where that ends up, including for those who are deemed not pure enough in their religious devotion.
The Socialist Democrats are just Trumpers in reverse. It’s the spirit of, “Let’s see how stupid we can get”.
No, they are extremists, whereas Trump has moved the GOP to the center, as I just explained. He has left behind the purity of the neocons and the free international-traders, and embraced the working class – again, as I just explained.
So, these are the MAGA talking points: 1. Democrats are “extreme”; no, Democrats represent what most Americans want more than Republicans do, which is why they have won so many elections since Trump took office; 2. Trump is moving the GOP to the center, because he allegedly “embraces” unions–what about Trump’s support for ” right to work laws”, which are anti-union, and his dismantling of federal unions?; 3. “no tax on tips or overtime”—a gimmick. The majority of Trump tax cuts — over 80% will benefit the top 1%; 4. Tariffs are supposed to “support domestic policies”–how can you write this with a straight face? How many times did your hero jack up tariffs as punishment when he couldn’t bully other countries to do what he wanted? Trump couldn’t care less about domestic factories. He cares about wielding power. 5. “the left hates trump” because they can’t “move him leftward”? Really? Trump is loathed because: a. he is a chronic, habitual liar–you literally cannot believe anything he says about anything; he lied about bringing down the cost of groceries and energy just to get elected, and both have skyrocked; he lied about “no new wars”–then started one based on a lie and he has no idea how to get out of it and save face; b. he is a misogynist–an adjudicated sexual assaulter of women, brags about grabbing womens’ genitals, calls female journalists who challenge him when he lies about “winning” in 2020 “piggy” or tells them to “shut up”, or, just gets up and walks out of interviews, like he did with Kristin Welker; c. he is a vicious racist–posted a meme of the Obamas as apes, said nothing about a cretin at that cage match who said Michelle Obama was a man; posted a picture of the Obamas in front of Air Force One that was sprayed with gang type graffiti; calls brown people “vermin, animals, criminals, rapists, and murderers” and accuses them of stealing peoples’ pets and eating them; denies promotions to women and black military officers and fired several of them; withdrew TPS for Haitians; d. he is an unabashed grifter–actually asked UAE for that luxury jet that we taxpayers paid to refurbish, so they bought $2 Billion of his worthless crypto, in exchange for which he sold them our most-sophisticated AI chips which they can use to spy on us; the non-billionaires who bought the rest of the crypto that Trump made billions on were regular people–the average loss per non billionaire “investor” was $3,800; Trump, of course, made out like a bandit–to the tune of several billions; he painted that flying palace with a big red stripe down the side because Jackie Kennedy chose the baby blue color for Air Force One; stupid doesn’t realize that one reason for the the baby blue color is that it blends in better with the color of the sky and would make it less vulnerable to being shot at by a rogue actor when Air Force One is outside the US; Oh, and stupid plans on taking the jet with him once he stops stinking up our White House; then, there are the deals with the companies in which his worthless sons have interests — they got awarded millions in defense contracts–they have absolutely no experience in munitions; he awards no-bid contracts to campaign donors, which is why the reflecting pool is a hot mess.
More MAGA talking points: Trump is just “heavy handed….strong leader”–no, he isn’t. That’s the MAGA myth. He’s really a very sad and pathetic malignant narcissist who acts on whims and lives to get in front of those cameras and to receive praise and adulation. He trades on racism and culture wars BS to entertain the fans. He has no actual agenda other than Project 2025, which most Americans oppose. He is either so disinterested or unable to concentrate that the presidential daily briefing has to be dumbed down to no more than one page–or less, if possible, leaving the question as to who is actually running the country. He signs Executive Orders drafted by Miller and others in Project 2025 without even reading them. He is devoted to trying to achieve a legacy–like trying to upstage JFK by putting his name above Kennedy’s on the JFK Center for Performing Arts, and then covering up the entrance after a court ordered his name to be removed. He wants a ballroom, lied about several presidents wanting to build one, lied about the cost coming from donations, tore down the East Wing without consulting historic preservation or Congress, and doesn’t care that the “ballroom” will dwarf the White House and destroy the aesthetic of the design. Then, there’s the arch, and his demand to be on Mt. Rushmore. His arrogance causes him to start petty spats with other world leaders, like Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s prime minister, that he insists was “begging” for a photo of him. She denied it, but he just won’t drop it. He is quoted as saying that he’s the most-powerful person in the world, and has compared himself to Hitler. I could go on and on and on.
He did a terrible job the first time around–COVID out of control, the country shut down, schools and businesses closed, and polls predicted he would lose–which he did, so he started an insurrection, and then pardoned the criminals who beat up our Capitol Police and now he wants to use our taxpayer money to reward them. His cabinet is the most incompetent in history. He’s trying to rig the midterms. All of these are reasons why he has set a record for low approval ratings.
Trump has won yet again! He has delivered yet another great victory for our country on its 260th birthday! Trump the MAGAnificent, America is blessed to have been saved from the depravity of these leftist Commies.
MAGA!
MAGAnificent
Nice! I might use that.
OMFK!
I just read OPEC in fight for survival with $40/barrel. Trump brought Iran to heel and we’re going to see $2.50 at the pump. Interest bearing savings at 3.4-4%. MAGA!
And those are just a few of the best things one can say about Trump.
I tried to release enough gas to stretch through the reading of your masterwork, but the stench over-came me. the stench of your screed, that is.
Did you think that up all by yourself? Conflatulations to you!
MAGA
Trump has won yet again peewee!
Ano
these are the MAGA talking points: 1. Democrats are “extreme”; no, Democrats represent what most Americans want more than Republicans do,
____________________________
Who forced the shot on everyone? Not the GOP or Trump.
Who goes around day after day saying Prez Trump is a dictator and wanting him dead. The dems you fool.