'Rebels without a clause': 10 times Dem. senators questioned Trump nominees' religious beliefs
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
One of the nation’s leading Christian conservative advocacy organizations has called out 12 senators who have employed “unconstitutional religious tests” on Trump nominees in the past two years.
Since the Trump administration came into power in 2017, a noticeable trend has occurred in which Democrat senators have questioned Trump judicial and political nominees about their religious beliefs and religious affiliations as to suggest that such beliefs and affiliations should disqualify them for public office.
The Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council released on Wednesday a new publication that documents 10 incidents over the past two years in which senators have interrogated nominees concerning their personal religious beliefs even though Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for public office.
The document was written by Alexandra McPhee, the director of religious freedom advocacy at Family Research Council.
“It is important to distinguish what questions should generally be considered appropriate or inappropriate,” the document “ Rebels Without a Clause: When Senators Run Roughshod Over the ‘No Religious Test’ Clause of the U.S. Constitution ” explains. “For instance, ‘[m]erely asking a nominee whether their beliefs might stop them from fulfilling their Constitutional duties is a relevant question.’ But ‘[r]ejecting someone over their faith alone is unquestionably a religious test.’”
The document stresses that a senator should not deem a nominee “fit or unfit according to his or her formal affiliation with one religious group or another.”
“And as Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) explained, ‘asking [a] nominee about the particulars of his or her religious beliefs’ is inappropriate because it will ‘inevitably expose those beliefs as somehow a qualifier or a disqualifier for public office,” McPhee wrote.
Neomi Rao
Earlier this month, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, a candidate for president in 2020, questioned Trump judicial nominee Neomi Rao, who currently serves as the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, during a confirmation hearing.
“Do you believe gay relationships are a sin?” Booker asked the nominee selected to replace Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the D.C. appellate court.
Rao responded by saying: “Senator, my personal views on any of these subjects are things that I would put to one side and I would faithfully follow [the precedence of the Supreme Court].”
“Senator Booker suggested this was an appropriate line of questioning because ‘religion [has been] used as a ruse to discriminate against African Americans,” the FRC document explains.
Booker’s question came during his line of questioning about Rao’s previous writings on past court rulings that favored gay marriage.
William Barr
Trump’s nominee to replace Jeff Sessions as attorney general, William Barr, who served as attorney general during the George H.W. Bush administration, was questioned by Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse in January.
Whitehouse brought up a 1992 speech in which, according to Whitehouse, Barr “blamed secularism for virtually every contemporary societal problem.”
“Relying on this characterization, Senator Whitehouse asked, ‘About a quarter of American adults today are not religious. Do you still think that those Americans are responsible for virtually every contemporary societal problem? If not, what changed your mind?’” the FRC document explains.
“Senator Whitehouse concluded, stating, ‘Given your stated views on the evils of secularism, what commitments will you make to ensure that non-religious career attorneys and staff at the Department are protected against disparate treatment on the basis of their secularism?’”
Barr responded by saying that the reports that Whitehouse quoted took “substantial parts of my speech out of context and are inaccurate.”
“Contemporary societal problems are complex and caused by many factors,” Barr responded. “I have never claimed that societal problems are caused by specific individuals or specific classes of individuals.”
Barr was confirmed by the Senate on Thursday.
Paul Matey and Brian Buescher
In November of last year, two Trump nominees faced questioning about their affiliation to the Catholic fraternal organization Knights of Columbus.
Although the organization does great charity work to help some of the world’s most vulnerable people, Kamala Harris, a California Democrat who is also running for president in 2020, questioned nominees Paul Matey and Brian Buescher about their membership with the Knights.
Her objection was the fact that the organization, in staying true to Catholic beliefs, opposes abortion and gay marriage.
Additionally, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii asked if the nominees' membership in the Knights of Columbus would allow them to “deal with reproductive rights and abortion issues fairly and impartially.”
“She questioned whether Judge Buescher and Matey would end their memberships with [Knights] ‘to avoid any appearance of bias,’” the FRC document explains. “In addition, Senator Hirono asked Judge Buescher and Matey whether they ‘believe[d] federal funds should not be given to [those] providers who support abortion services.’ Senator Hirono also asked each nominee about the health value of contraceptives and ‘what steps’ each took ‘to make clear that [they did] not hold [those] views’ reflected in statements by the Knights of Columbus.”
California Attorney General Kamala Harris speaks at the Center for American Progress' 2014 Making Progress Policy Conference in Washington November 19, 2014. Allison Rushing
Allison Rushing, a nominee for the Fourth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, was questioned last October by several senators about her participation in programs led by the conservative religious freedom legal nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom.
Although ADF has won nine Supreme Court cases in the last seven years, Sens. Whitehouse, Hirono, Booker, Dianne Feinstein, Patrick Leahy, Chris Coons, and Richard Blumenthal all questioned her about her affiliation with the group.
“Senator Hirono questioned Rushing’s ability to render decisions impartially or fairly in cases involving the court-created right to abortion or involving litigants that identify as homosexual or transgender because of Rushing’s internship and speaking engagements with ADF,” McPhee detailed. “Senator Blumenthal asked, ‘Would you perform a same-sex wedding if asked to do so?’ In questions related to ADF, Senators Whitehouse, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, and Booker relied on the characterization by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a progressive activist group that frequently defames ideological opponents.”
The SPLC lists ADF and several other Christian conservative organizations as “hate groups” because of their stances on sexuality and gay marriage. SPLC has faced defamation lawsuits because of the “hate group” labeling.
“In questions related to a separate speaking engagement, Senator Whitehouse asked, ‘In your view, are Judeo-Christian morality and homosexuality incompatible?’” the FRC report explains. “Senator Harris also asked Rushing whether she believed ‘that LGBT rights cannot be reconciled with religion.’”
Tags
Who is online
63 visitors
“Allison Rushing, a nominee for the Fourth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, was questioned last October by several senators about her participation in programs led by the conservative religious freedom legal nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom.
Although ADF has won nine Supreme Court cases in the last seven years, Sens. Whitehouse, Hirono, Booker, Dianne Feinstein, Patrick Leahy, Chris Coons, and Richard Blumenthal all questioned her about her affiliation with the group.
“Senator Hirono questioned Rushing’s ability to render decisions impartially or fairly in cases involving the court-created right to abortion or involving litigants that identify as homosexual or transgender because of Rushing’s internship and speaking engagements with ADF,” McPhee detailed. “Senator Blumenthal asked, ‘Would you perform a same-sex wedding if asked to do so?’ In questions related to ADF, Senators Whitehouse, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, and Booker relied on the characterization by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a progressive activist group that frequently defames ideological opponents.”
The SPLC lists ADF and several other Christian conservative organizations as “hate groups” because of their stances on sexuality and gay marriage. SPLC has faced defamation lawsuits because of the “hate group” labeling.”
The ADF religious stances are unyielding and contrary to the US Constitution, as is attempting to legislate those stances into laws affecting everyone. The ADF is more than a hate group, it's a religious based subversive organization of activists that promote unamerican ideals, while being protected by the same document that they claim persecutes them.
I'd certainly want to know if a nominee to a federal bench was some knuckle dragging bible thumper that couldn't check their particular version of some religious faith bullshit at the door of Constitutional law in a secular USA. If a judge can't separate church and state in real life, unlikely they will from the bench. I'm guessing some Americans might have a problem with that.
Well ADF just got one of our own on the appeals court. We also won 9 cases before the United States Supreme Court in the last couple of years. The SPLC thought that they could destroy our various organizations by defamation and libel with their bigoted hate designations. Instead we are more powerful than ever. Our groups have places in the judiciary, in the executive branch, on congressional staff and their leaders and writings are appearing all over other conservative and Christian media. Personally I’d choose their very real increased political and media power over being able to seed directly from any of my aligned organizations sites any day. We mock those who call us hate groups and laugh in your faces as our political power grows and message spreads across many more platforms because of the designation. Now the lawsuits move forward and the SPLC and those who use their hate labels in any of their business actions will be made to cease and desist or face financial ruin.
cool, I urge bible thumpers to breach the wall separating church and state as soon as possible.
What you and I define as a real and significant blending of church and state are not the same thing. A state controlling what religious people can believe and not protecting the free excercise clause of believers is a breach as would be the state taxing a church. The church using the power of the state to coerce on its behalf in matters of conscience and belief tegarding it’s doctrines would be a breach.
As an atheist, any group I form is subject to laws which churches get to skirt. I am President of a 501(3)(c)charity which is only tax exempt if we focus solely on charity, not on any religious or political grounds. And that makes perfect sense. I'm not running this charity to push any beliefs. I'm running it to ensure that people who need dialysis can get transportation to it, as they're waiting for kidney transplants. Whatever their beliefs may be.
Nobody's harming your belief by allowing us to not use our tax dollars to allow you to evade paying property taxes. Any charitable donations by churches should be tax exempt. But having buildings for people to worship should not be exempt. You want special consideration and then screech "PERSECUTION!!" if you are treated the same way as anyone else. And you want your churches to be able to preach about politics without penalty, despite what the law says.
Hmmm, sounds exactly like how the supposed "Deep State" has been described.
"We mock those who call us hate groups and laugh in your faces as our political power grows"
Sure, sure, you sound mighty friendly alright, how would anyone get the impression you were a hate group? /s
Strange. Seeing as how 'the GOP' wears that cross as a badge I fail to see why this Op/Ed topic has any merit of discussion. Proclaim it loud and proud, right?
Besides, didn't the Trump proclaim that his 'litmus test' for judges would be the 'anti-choice' candidates?
It has merit of discussion because I seeded it. And yes the no religious test clause of the US Constitution needs to be proclaimed loudly and proudly and by the very fine and upstanding groups doing so. There is a clear constitutional difference between a litmus test based on a desired political or legal outcome and using religious beliefs as a test of whether one can be confirmed to or elected to any office.
Your personal beliefs - religious or otherwise - are supposed to be irrelevant to your willingness and ability to abide by the Constitution. But inquiry into religious beliefs and affiliations are constitutionally prohibited. And these elected representatives who swore to protect and defend that document know better.
[Deleted]
["][Labeling and/or creative name-calling of entire political groups, ideological, religious, cultural, sexual identity / orientation, etc. groups (i.e. Rethuglicans, Libtards, etc), is forbidden."]
You can find that on the left too.
Because of the Constitutional separation of church and state, I don't see anything wrong with making sure candidates will actually be unbiased. In Barr's case, his comments about secularism were worth asking him about, to ensure that they wouldn't impact his ability to do his job. Unfortunately, some religious extremists WILL place their faith above all else, including our Constitution.
I don't either, but inquiring into that should be based on some history of the nominee actually exhibiting bias by imposing their beliefs instead of abiding by the law. The inquiry shouldn't be based on an assumption that a person of a certain religious affiliation will be biased in the future because of that religious affiliation. If the Senators are going to ignore history and look only at religious affiliation, the nominee has no defense.
I think affiliation does count as history. The goal of the questioning was to ensure that their affiliations and beliefs would not impact their ability to fulfill their oaths of office.
I’m just glad that we got a leader of the awesome conservative Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom on to one of our federal appeals courts. That kind of victory is great.
This is why it's valid to ask them questions, if they have questionable affiliations. I've noticed that most fanatics can't keep themselves from saying what they really think, when they're not allowed to dodge the question.
No religious test for public office. Period. Just what part of the word no is so hard for secular progressives to understand?
just trying to figure out the whole person
Would you reject me solely on my lack of religious beliefs? Remembering that I agree with you on somethings and disagree on other issues and mostly try to be consistent
I've actually heard some theists say they would not vote for anyone without a religion, regardless of any other qualifications or record of a candidate. To them, religious affiliation (or lack thereof) is the single most important factor.
Not at all. It's the narrow mindset that is questionable.
Someone voting for a candidate based on a single factor alone, without even considering anything else seems rather narrow minded to me.
Some people do have a high opinion of themselves.
Of course, and I didn't say otherwise. I simply said it's narrow minded.
Yes.
Until it becomes egotistical or arrogant.
People can vote for whomever they want for whatever reason they want. That's not the issue. When you vote based on one specific criteria without considering anything else, that is narrow minded.
That doesn't refute or change anything I said. That only reinforces it.
There is to be no religious test for office. No questions regarding the beliefs or the legitimacy of a believer in any faith or none at all.
That is what I said. Glad you understand.
And there isn't! Religious affiliation is not a qualifier or disqualifier for seeking office.
Wrong! A candidate for office can certainly be questioned by constituents, especially when there is a concern religious belief will hinder the ability to uphold the Constitution. He simply cannot be disqualified from seeking office due to religion.
Yet atheists need not apply.
Got it!
So bald was Feinstein’s bias that Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber and Sen. Orrin Hatch warned that the senator was violating the most emphatic sentence in the entire US Constitution.
“No religious test,” that sentence says, “shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
How could the Framers possibly have made themselves more clear? “No … ever … any.”
At the time the Framers wrote that sentence, there were myriad religious tests applied to state-level offices. The Supreme Court didn’t definitively scrap the practice until 1961.
That ruling came after Maryland’s governor appointed an atheist, Roy Torcaso, to be a notary public. Torcaso refused to proclaim, as Maryland required, that he believed in God.
The Maryland court of appeals decided Torcaso’s rights weren’t violated because he wasn’t required to hold public office in the first place. The Supreme Court overturned that error unanimously.
Maryland, Justice Hugo Black wrote, had set up “a religious test” designed to “bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public ‘office of profit or trust’ in Maryland.”
In doing so, the Nine noted, Maryland had violated the First Amendment’s bar on Congress establishing a religion, which was incorporated against the states under the 14th Amendment.
Why? I don't play along party lines.
They should create an atheist party then.
That makes no sense. Atheism is not a political party.
no, you choose to try to control other's lives and other's choices concerning their lives and bodies. you are trying to hold them to your religious standards instead of giving them the choice to do as they wish with their bodies and medical decisions relating to those bodies.
That usually happens after viability. But the woman's well being is paramount.
sure, at the point of viability, correct ? would a woman be able to make her own decisions about her body up to that point ?
who is the power source?
At the expense of someone's personal choice.
Because the actual life and existence of one should trump the selfishness and convenience of the other.
There is only one that is actually alive and existing
Supplying the power trumps using the power
And what is wrong with convenience? I like convenience
Then you're against the choice of someone. So that makes you anti-choice.
No one is pro abortion, we are pro choice. An individual woman decides which choice is best for her.
No, I choose life over death. It really is that simple.
Exactly. They are pro abortion.
Great. You just don't get to make that choice for anyone else, or otherwise restrict anyone else's choice.
And you would be wrong!
Do you support mandatory blood & organ donation? If not you are not pro-life because people die without those donations.
You've already made it clear you think a clump of cells which isn't yet a human being trumps the living woman who is pregnant.
And the people cowered at the foot of the alabaster monument cradling that which was not yet among them.
A man infected with aids just raped and impregnated your beautiful daughter. What do you do?
My drivers license says go ahead and harvest me when I'm dead.
Was a paramedic for way too many years and watched folk die due to lack of blood..
I give platelets as often as I can because I am O-. The universal donor.
And you advocate for abortion so you are pro abortion.
One is a human being from the moment of conception. Calling a person a clump of cells is simply objectifying a person to rationalize what the President referred to abortion as in the state of the union address on this topic out of personal selfishness and convenience.
I too am a donor and have given blood regularly as well. Mine is B-
No, I advocate for people being able to make their own choice. So I am pro-choice.
A "clump of cells" is exactly what it is. And a cell/'s is not yet a human being. Calling cells a human being is just erroneous emotional based rhetoric.
If you believe that, then you must believe that sperm - because they are alive, they compete to get to the egg, etc. - are also unborn human beings, and that if you don't impregnate a woman every day, you're committing murder.
I'm sure there are some people who do believe that.
And the funny thing is, they're probably the religious fanatics who are so hung up on sex that they almost never have it.
I am also registered as an organ donor, but it was my choice. Some people want women to be forced to donate their uterus to save a life, but would think the government would be overstepping to force people to donate organs to save lives. Kidneys & livers can be harvested while the donor still lives so if a woman is forced to donate her uterus then those that think that is ok should be forced to register and donate those organs when needed to save a life.
To be clear - I do not believe in forced organ donation.
I wouldn't be surprised. What else other than religion has convinced people that sex is bad, dirty, "sinful," ect.?
It's sad that those who pretend to be "pro-life" show so clearly that they actually don't care about life. They're anti-choice for everyone else, but when it comes to themselves, they are selfish and hypocritical.
Indeed. The whole "choose life" nonsense isn't a choice when some people think that shold be the only "choice." They don't get that whatever another person "chooses" to do is none of their business or concern.
And I advocate for human life at all stages of our human development from conception to natural death when that happens. I oppose the arbitrary ending of any human life at any stage of it and am thus pro life.
Except that a zygote is a clump of cells, not a human life.
You're anti-choice and anti-science.
As I said, you don't get to make that determination or decision for anyone else, nor deprive anyone if their right to choose. Neither is anyone else's decision or choice any of your business!
A zygote isn't even a clump of cells. It's just a single, undifferentiated cell. A cell does not a human make.
And you advocate not allowing a woman the choice so you are anti-women.
Good point. An embryo, then.
You are anti woman and pro fetus must be born no matter what, the woman comes secondary just like a human incubator or a brood mare.
Not even that. First it's a zygote. Then a blastocyst, then an embryo.
And he's anti-Planned Parenthood - I guess any woman who dares to have sex deserves to get pregnant and to be forced to give birth. No birth control for those sluts!
Basically, it's woman hating: some don't care about women's rights, choices, or health. It's essentially wanting to make women second class citizens. I do not understand how anyone can hate women.
As someone whose grandmother died giving birth to my father, I think those views are evil.
Axlotl Tanks from Dune
That's putting it nicely.
If we are talking of the MBFC definition of anti science since you use their phraseology, I am proudly so. Their parameters are pure and unadulterated bs of no merit whatsoever and I categorically reject and defy them and all who stand by them or identify with them. Their view of science is bigoted and nothing more than progressive propaganda. They are an interesting example of an unrelated 3rd party media site whose opinions mean nothing whatsoever except sheer and utter contempt for to me. [Deleted]
Coming from an admitted young earth creationist, that's hilarious. Of course facts garner only sheer and utter contempt from you. They destroy your viewpoint and invalidate your attempts to prevent others from having equal rights.
Not to mention a biblical literalist and angels aficionado too.
Some people just can't handle facts. they prefer the emotionally appealing coziness of mere belief and delusion.
I honestly don't get the appeal of a delusion which tells you are inherently a POS, and that you have to reject reality and facts, and have to go through mental gyrations and avoid any real education. How could that be cozy?
Neither do I.
You're asking the wrong guy. I'm "cozy" when I curl up with a good book. Like the last book Stephen Hawking wrote: Brief Answers to the Big Questions.
Speaking of cozying up to a book .. I worked from home today, and asked Alexa to play soft classical music. She chose "classical music for reading" .. it is truly great background music when you're cozying up to a good book.
The sperm uniting with the egg becomes human life in that instant. Neither alone can become human life. Thus when we eat eggs we are not killing baby chicks 🐤 to do so. Humans don’t die when a woman has a period or a guy masturbates.
And I have a great new science seed for you. Enjoy 😊
I totally stand by absolutely everything that I wrote and double down on every single word of it.
Please don't tell me you can't tell when you're eating a fertilized egg.
I don't care if you quadruple down - you're still wrong. Repeating lies doesn't make them true.
Given your obvious and glaring lack of scientific understanding, I'll pass on your idea of "science," thanks.
Wrong! it becomes a zygote: a single, undifferentiated cell, no more unique (and even less so) than any other cell in the body. Calling it "human" is just an attempt to anthropomorphize it or attach some emotional appeal.
So you can look at a chicken egg and tell if it's been fertilized or not?
Neither do humans die when a woman has an abortion.
If you want to double down on ignorance and foolishnness, be my guest.
So you would get behind mandatory blood and organ donations to save lives? You would be ok if some person you do not know is a match to you & you are forced to give a kidney, a piece of liver or even blood to save that person?
Be glad you did. It's from the Liberty Institute .... a very poor and obvious attempt to turn people away from evolution and onto intelligent design, especially considering the Wedge document.
No surprise there. it's not the first time he tried to pass on BS religious nonsense trying to masquerade as "science." It's easy to call him out on such things and expose the intellectual dishonesty.
Whatttttttttttt?
smh.
Most farm fresh eggs are fertilized. They are still eggs, sometimes killed by refrigeration, sometimes killed by cracking open the egg.
If there is a vein in it, the egg white is thicker, but the egg is still edible, enjoy it.
Now, in your assumptive position that major brand supermarket eggs are infertile, and you are somehow exonerated by eating them, please know that they are the result
of questionable mass production which defies the very definition of 'animal cruelty' by supposedly killing 6 BILLION male chicks globally every year. They are suffocated and tossed in the trash.
The females are sold to egg mills
and when those females have artificially produced hundreds of eggs per year more than they would in the wild,
they are killed in the most horrific ways and then tossed as trash.
Caution, if you open this link, you might swear off eggs and chicken for a long time.
More Evangelical percussion complex on display.
Interviewer - "You know the rule is not to let your religion bias your work, correct?"
Typical Older White Male Evangelical Interviewee - "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
You can use whatever you want to when deciding who to vote for, so it would be a valid question for the person elected to ask same type questions
When it comes to religion it is not. Or would you prefer all atheists (of which I am) to be questioned on their beliefs (or lack thereof) because religious politicians think anyone that doesn't believe in God is unfit to hold a position at any level of government?
These questions are just for show for each sides base anyways. It is not like judicial nominees don't have their entire college, lawyer, and judicial records on file. The politicians have already made up their minds how they are going to vote long before the show begins. In the case of Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Kavanaugh it was a chance to drag a political opponent through the mud. With Bork it worked- and set the tone for Thomas and Kavanaugh. Wonder when the Republicans will sink to the Democrats level?
They already do that. In some states, atheists can't even legally hold office - despite a religious test being illegal.
I am worried about the religious extremes, the less religious they are the better
Anti religion is an extreme.
And here I thought that far right Christian based religion was insane (won't be kissing snakes anytime soon).
Yep. Sad to say that the USA has become extremely backwards thanks to a plethora of far right wing propaganda paid for by the Kochs and their ALEC friends.
The Koch’s are much more libertarian than populist. The Koch’s, ALEC, Heritage, and Heartland are all great Americans.
That's kind of funny since the Kochs despise your orange idol.
I’m aware. That’s why it’s funny that another brought them into this conversation.
Never.
So you had no problem with the democrats line of questioning to Trump nominees Kavanaugh and Amy Barrett?
Democratic leaders charging the Knights of Columbus (of which John F. Kennedy was a member) is a secret hate society. They are so detached from reality at this point that I assume Coney Barrett will attacked as a witch if she's nominated for the Supreme Court.
She was already attacked on the no religious test grounds by various senators when she was being confirmed for her current court position. Something about the force of dogma being “strong” in this one. Of course it was a senator from California that embarrassed herself with that one.
In the USA. the Constitution is higher than the Bible
Some people have a hard time understanding or believing that.
the Constitution is higher than the Bible
Some people have a hard time understanding or believing that.
I'll say! It's like they've never looked at Article VI, Section 3.
Have these Democrats been referred to the Ethics office? They should be.
It’s past time the senate leadership should do that. If they do, better late than never.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Isn’t it interesting that the same atheists who once quoted article 6 section 3 to protect their own seeking appointed office would now that they have some political power behind their beliefs then turn it on its head and trample upon it when it comes to believers who are their political opponents seeking office?