E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The U.S. Supreme Court is facing mounting, bipartisan calls to televise the historic oral arguments over the constitutionality of President Obama's health care law.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) joined the call on Wednesday for justices to allow for cameras inside the high court's chamber for the arguments, which are slated for sometime early next year.
"When the Affordable Care Act is placed before the highest court in our country, all Americans will have a stake in the debate; therefore, all Americans should have access to it," the top House Democrat said in a statement. "Openness and transparency are essential to the success of our democracy, and in this historic debate, we must ensure the ability of our citizens to take part."
Pelosi joins in the fight with a somewhat unlikely ally: Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, the top Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Grassley wrote on Tuesday to urge the court to televise the arguments. Grassley opposes the law, while Pelosi was one of its foremost proponents.
C-SPAN, the public affiars network that has pushed repeatedly for the court to open up its arguments to cameras, also wrote Chief Justice John Roberts to urge for a special dispensation in this case.
Still, there's not any indication that the court will relent to any pressure, even for the unusual five-and-a-half hours in scheduled arguments. The court just last year allowed the release of audio recordings of oral arguments at the end of each week.
Leave a Comment:
Lol.... you must be joking ..if its televised they will do deals in the back offices ..you cant trust any of these bought and paid for Judges ! They are what's wrong with America ! Impeach all of them !
Why all the cloak & dagger secrecy?
If we have to be subjected to trials like Casey Anthony & Dr. Murray then WHY NOT be able to witness something as important as this?
Feisty, the SCOTUS loves the aura of mystery and power it has by NOT being on tv. Besides, someone might get the idea they are accountable too!
And that's exactly why they won't open the arguments.
They've always protected the secrecy of oral arguments, which is, in reality, something of an open secret. After all, in addition to the lawyers, some members of the public are admitted to the arguments, and I believe that transcripts are available.
I suspect that none of them want the rest of us to see firsthand how they really behave on the bench.
Of course, another possible reason is that they want to make sure that no one -- not the lawyers, and not the justices -- postures in front of the camera.
I wonder if they taped that fete that Scalia and Thomas attended the other night for the Federalist Society -- you know, the one thrown by the organization that is arguing against the Affordable Care Act.
I'll bet there was some posturing there.
Why do I suspect we won't see that on YouTube anytime soon, either?
Wouldn't it had been nice if cameras where in Ms. Pelosi's office while she was buying votes for ObamaCare? Transparency and all. Maybe Mr. Reid could have done the same too.
And that's exactly why they won't open the arguments.
They've always protected the secrecy of oral arguments, which is, in reality, something of an open secret. After all, in addition to the lawyers, some members of the public are admitted to the arguments, and I believe that transcripts are available.
I suspect that none of them want the rest of us to see firsthand how they really behave on the bench.
_______________________________________________
Did Nancy Pelosi open up the Dem discussions when she was putting the ClunkerCare law together??
A small number of members of the public are in attendance whenever there are oral arguments. It's a small number because the SC chamber is not very big. I was able to attend oral arguments when I was on vacation in DC in October 2010. You just have to get in line really early. The SC website also has transcripts of all oral arguments and audio recordings if you are interested.
I can't believe that I am saying this... but Amen Feisty!
What's the matter Joe and JoAnna - you afraid all your arguements against better healthcare will actually get the working class fired up and ready for fight in Nov. 2012? you better believe it would!
No I think their point was that it's pretty asinine to want to have cameras in the SC for the oral arguments, but not to allow them to tape the laws creation... And as I recall there was a lot of talk and promises made during the 2008 Presidential elections about "open and transparent government". So what happened to that when this and several other key laws were being crafted?
I think that was the point Joanna and Joe were trying to make.
Put it on Tee Vee !!
Americans believe that it is the Federal Governments responsibility to provide Health Care by 50% to 46%.
Those that want the ACA repealed are at 47% v 42% that want it to stand with 11% undecided. By 80%-10% Republicans want the law repealed compared to 21%-64% of Dems and 48%-43% of Independents.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150773/Americans-Tilt-Toward-Favoring-Repeal-Healthcare-Law.aspx
Dennis,
Good morning Dennis, how are you today?
I am really against the televising of the Supreme Court on this or any other issue. I believe all hearings in Federal Court should not be televised. It will do nothing to change peoples minds about the case.
Hi Sarge,
Doing well thanks. I tend to agree with you. This got to SCOTUS very fast and has a lot of attention – it has been in the current events and headlines for over 2 years. I think that most people will see just how boring a Supreme Court hearing is. IMHO with TV in the court it becomes more political which should never happen.
Congress is telling a separate but equal branch of government how to do its job. I guess the Supreme Court can next tell Congress how to do its job.
The overall number is I'd say a tie. What's frustrating and sad is that the right has again successfully convinced people to be against what would benefit them and be for what would benefit big insurance companies. Democrats failed early on by allowing the republicans to get ahead in the debate with the "government takeover" nonsense; by the time death panels and killing grandma came to be, the narrative against the Affordable Care Act has been written by the GOP.
“Congress is telling a separate but equal branch of government how to do its job.”
Some in Congress are asking SCOTUS not telling them anything …
If Congress wanted to tell SCOTUS to do something they could pass a law or propose a constitutional amendment. JAS1 always reads more into everything than what is actually said.
The reason the GOP was ahead on the debate, was because the ideas were originally theirs.
They had the time to do the opposition research before those ideas were ever brought up.
Now that their ideas became part of Obama's ACA, they're against it.
They're a flippin and a floppin, it the way they flow these days.
They could propose anything and once the President accepts it, they suddenly become against it.
From the "You have got to be kidding me!" files. Where does this hypocrite Pelosi get off telling/asking anyone about transparency? Transparency she denied the American people while she went behind closed doors to swing deals for votes for ObamaCare. Maybe Nancy should sit down and be quiet once in her pathetic life. Maybe go through her stock portfolio and tell us how much she made off of insider trading (per 60 minutes report).
Come on Dennis, Congress has no right to ask or tell the SC to do anything.
What is really laughable is that you believe that your Johnny is any better.
He set some new rules for his House, ones he promised the American people he would enforce, and before the first week ended he broke 2 of them and since then has voted to set aside some of those rules many times including citing the constitutionally of any new laws. Why create rules you cannot abide by?
Definitely, the Supreme Court hearing on the Affordable Care Act should be televised for all to see and hear. For too long, the SCOTUS has been behind closed doors; it is time for C-Span to be given access.
In addition, it is time for Chief Justice Roberts to step up to that plate he talked about during his confirmation hearing and have a serious discussion with Scalia and Thomas, especially Thomas, about recusing themselves. If Americans are expected to trust the Supreme Court, then the current court must give us a reason to trust them. Clearly, Scalia and Thomas are in league with the anti-ACA crowd. We all know Thomas's wifes lobbying efforts. Both Scalia and Thomas, a few hours after the SCOTUS announced it would hear arguments on ACA, attended a right-wing dinner as guests of honor at a function hosted by the law firm which will argue against ACA. As for Kagan, if her previous career position presents an appearance of bias, then she should as well.
Hahaha... Jody, You Funny!
SickofB, care to explain what is so funny about expecting an unbiased Supreme Court. Nothing like having justices in the back pockets of big business when their role must be to strictly interpret the Constitution (isn't that what the GOP claims). What is your opinion beyond hahaha?
I guess that only the conservative judges are in the "back pockets" of big business huh?
BTW... you should grow up and face the fact that a "strict interpretation" of the Constitution is still performed by human beings... human beings with different life experiences and therefore different views and perspectives.
What amuses me is the standard liberal view (which you so obviously adhere to) is that even in the SCOTUS there is nothing but corruption and conspiracy.
My question to you is this...
Is there ANYTHING about our government that you DO like? (other than the guy currently sitting in the White House)?
And... if not... why do you stay here?
(It seems to me that our governmental system has worked pretty well for the last 235 years. It made us the great country and world power that we are. Perhaps the problems we face have more to do with the people that are in office now, rather than the system itself. If you don't like the way things are going vote out those that are not doing a good job.)
SickoB, if the left-leaning justices were attending pro-Obama health care dinners and hobnobbing with those who will argue for the ACA, and had spouses who lobby for pro-ACA causes, you'd be singing a different tune beyond the local yokel ha ha's you post today.
Sounds to me as though you are afraid that the ACA will be overturned...
GOOD!
Did not say only conservative justices are in the back pockets of business but now that you mention it, the evidence points that direction. How else to you explain Citizens United which undid those 235 years of supreme court rulings which said corporations were not people and only the conservative justices said corporations are people. How else do you explain Scalia, Thomas and often Alito attending secret Koch Brothers meetings and now two attending the dinner sponsored by the law firm that will argue against the ACA--as guests of honor. Any reports of similar activities by the left-leaning justices?
Yes, there are many things about our democracy I like. I also remember when democracy and the idea of freedom and rights for all, not just some was part of both sides of the aisle. I support Federal Government, the depts of Education, Commerce, Energy, the IRS, the EPA, Defense, State Department, etc etc. It seems to me that those who hate our government are conservatives. Any party that spends its time demonizing our President and those GOPers in Congress systematically obstruct while watching the American people suffer and those GOPers do it in the name of Party First, Country Last are the ones who have a hatred of democracy and government.
What amuses me is someone like you who seems to dislike a great deal about government has the audacity to ask if there's anything I like when there is nothing in my original comment that suggests I hate my country or my government.
No, I'm NOT afraid ACA will be overturned; in fact, I think the opposite but as a citizen of this great country, I expect that our Supreme Court Justices be above politics and that they would have the good sense to recuse themselves when their own credibility on any issue, ACA or some other, is called into question. That is the case with Scalia and Thomas, their own credibility as unbiased justices is at stake.
I am not sure how I feel about arguments before the Supreme Court being televised, but your assumption is definitely not what Jody is concerned about. That's entirely a figment of your imagination--and a meager imagination, it is.
Actually, the oral arguments among the justices are pretty fascinating. I would suggest that you should listen to Cokie Roberts' transcriptions on NPR sometime, but I know that you won't.
Hey Jack...
That was not my statement... so don't go talking as though I was not interested the oral arguments of the SCOTUS. Quite the contrary... If you get your head out of your @$$ you might notice that way up top I posted that I was in favor of televising the oral arguments.
You might also notice that Jody did accuse the conservative justices of conspiracy and corruption.
So I would say THAT WAS HER POINT!
Perhaps it is you that should get a grip and BTW... try improving your reading comprehension skills... It will go a long way toward helping you hide your stupidity.
You see Jody...
The difference between you and me is our interpretation of a few key words and concepts...
Please, allow me to post my views on these words. I could talk in great depth about this but I will try to summarize to the 50,000 ft. level...
I am very interested in hearing your views on these few words that I suspect lead to our differences in opinion.
SOB,
You're much too funny. You say that "I suspect that none of them want the rest of us to see firsthand how they really behave on the bench" wasn't your statement, but I never said it was. I copied one of your statements (and didn't identify you by name), and copied one of Joe of Albany's (and didn't identify him by name). Maybe you need to improve your reading skills.
And, no, I still disagree. Your initial words were "Sounds to me as though you are afraid that the ACA will be overturned", which is quite a bit different from what you wrote above, "Jody did accuse the conservative justices of conspiracy and corruption", which still seems to me to be inaccurate. I don't want to speak overly much for Jody, but what I read is that she was calling for transparency. You read into these things what you want to, and nothing anyone says will change your mind.
As for the rest of your juvenile comments, you might try growing up.
The SCOTUS does not want it proceedings televised. They much prefer the anonymity of their inner sanctum
Say it isn't so
Even at that, they should televise it so we can see how they shape their mouth in their pronunciations. Just like I'll like to see the super committee on deficit reductions televise their own meetings too.
Funny, that Pelosi want the process open to the public, after passing it behind closed doors and without explaining the plan to America at her level.
Of course pelosi was in favor of the law, she didn't read it, let alone understand it.
If the plan was so good, why are so many states requesting waivers?
american-2051576
You mean Republicants controlled states? GOP deliberately refused to come to terms with this HR law. A law most American are for.
gee pen, up until this month polls put Americans as being against obamacare. based on the CNN poll of nov 14 2011 public support fot obamacare jumped from 46% to 52% not really a firm sign of support. However, if you want to mention red states why not give us the names of all those states seeking waivers so we can decide for ourselves which is red and which is blue?
Don't you think that most states have bipartisan support for legislation created by each state? I know here in iowa neither party has the votes to pass legislation without bipartisan support. It wouldn't be any stretch of the imagination to believe that there are other states as well.
Regardless, it is part of the public record on pelosi's opinion that the act didn't need to be read, but pass it anyways, but I am entirely happy with the SCOTUS debating the merits and legality of the individual mandate.
don't forget the big labor unions and aarp who got him
elected were paid off too with waivers but they wanted it?
Televising the arguments would be interesting, although I'm not sure who would posture more, the attorneys, or the justices. What would be more interesting, and even more unlikely to happen, would be to televise the deliberations. Yes, we get the summation in the form of the majority and minority opinions, but wouldn't it be interesting to see the justices actually discuss the pros and cons of the law in an open forum.
That would be interesting but that doesn't happen in ANY court of law here in the US.
Sick,
I'm aware that it doesn't happen, but wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall? I'd be interested in knowing whether or not they all sit at a table and discuss it, or do they meet in smaller groups of like minded individuals, and prepare a position paper for the larger group. Are Supreme Court justices subject to the same restrictions as we are when we are on Jury Duty, meaning, are they not able to talk with one another outside of the full panel deliberations? I'd like to believe that they act more adult than the House or the Senate, but believing and knowing are often two different things.
Guess what?
I’ve been thinking (doesn’t happen often, but when it does, I just gotta go with it)…..
One of the more lamentable experiences I had with a public (read: communist, pinko, subversive) education was the running spat I had with my Government/Economics teacher. She was in her early thirties and was kinda cute, as I remember. But she was smart and heartlessly truthful about most things, particularly in relation to what kind of person she thought I was. She never let me get away with pretending that I wasn’t smarter than a 5th grader (which was acceptable─probably even expected) of me, given all the prerequisites I already filled (poor, black, single-parent home, bad environment, etc.).
But one thing she said during one of her spirited discourses has always stuck with me. Paraphrasing, she said that if anybody wanted to REALLY run things in Government, you had to be a judge. A judge at any government level (local, state or federal) is usually the final authority on laws being upheld or repealed. I’m sure I don’t have to remind any of the sage political regulars here of that.
The law of the land, ultimately, is what the Supreme Court says it is.
Ain’t it grand.
And here all this time, I thought President George W. Bush spent all that time stacking the Supreme Court with conservative-leaning judges was just another way to pay off political favors.
Anybody thinking that the Republican party isn’t playing by the rules is getting a little ahead of themselves. What you do with the rules (if you can get ahold of the paper or book they’re written on) is change them to suit your needs. It’s not about what’s just, right fair, progressive, or even particularly humane or sensible or even “patriotic”, see─it’s about what you can get away with legally.
Republicans have a distinct desire to work our government just as it is (and there’s some scurrilous Democrats in there, too─I’m unashamedly liberal, but I ain’t blind)…and you do that by stacking the deck in favor of the rules, so that interpretation (and subsequently, implementation) of those rules is all you need to get your idealogy closer to becoming reality.
Learned a long time ago two very simple and universal truths about life in general, and American politics in particular:
1) No idea descends into manifestation without an imperfection (big fancy words to say that whatever ideas we all tend to have about how and why we should live our lives this way or that way are perfect in our own minds, and whoever else we happen to share those thoughts with). But it’s going to take some acceptance of what’s going on around you in order to get any semblance of it to exist here with the rest of us dopey mortals. A one-word rendition of that sentiment (a rarity for me) would be compromise. Eewww. It’s sticky even SAYING it (or typing it, as it were). Guess I can KINDA see why Speaker of the House John Boehner’s got that burr in his britches about it.
2) You cannot legislate morality completely into or completely out of society. Sooner or later, a society only endures as long as its citizens desire it to. And a just society can only endure as long as its consideration for and its compassion toward its less fortunate citizens is paramount in its purpose.
For all you Constitutional purists, I happen to agree that there are some problems that our government will never be equipped to adequately deal with, no matter how much money or time or effort is put into it. Ultimately, all government can do is give us an opportunity to figure that out─each one of us─on our own, without estranging biases clouding judgement, skewing perspectives, and propagating an insidiousness in behavior and temperament that would do more to destroy the country than anybody conducting an extended sleepover in a public park or a gun-toting NASCAR junkie shouting obscenities at elected officials at public meeting forums (You do know that the drafters of that Constitution you so nobly defend fought like cats and dogs over its intent, content, and future application about as badly as we’re seeing happen now in Washington, right?).
Healthcare is going to be the thermometer used to take the national temperature, in earnest this time. It takes a bit of a back seat to the economy (because…well…it just does…see, I’m a Capitalist too!).
Not so much from the decision (made yay or nay) regarding the Healthcare Act or any of its components, in my opinion, but from whether or not it can be seen as a national mandate to change what we feel collectively should be considered “affordable” health care.
You will naturally run into the assorted fruits and nuts who cheer people dying in the streets, or who prefer a hand-out to a hand UP (all of that makes a good salad, and really…isn’t part of the fun of taking a safari like this getting to see all the wild beasts in their natural habitats?)…but the point of the whole thing for me, will be to see (if it’s televised) how the Supreme Court sees the role of government in regards to the medical health of its populace.
Too much or not enough? I can’t wait to see what they decide.
Wish I had paid more attention in Eco/Gov, though…
Marcoo - while not disagreeing with some of your thoughts, but long before the internet, the major news media (ABC, CBS & NBC) always made the analysis that presidents always looked for candidates that leaned a certain way on some issues. Nothing really new and the nominee's still have to have congressional approval.
You are right in that the "law of the land" will shape our future.
Well, hey, american,
I'm living proof of the "law of the land" shaping my future...
If not, I'd still be picking cotton for somebody in North Carolina...!
Oral arguments are not secret. The press reports them. The public attends. The arguments are recorded to be listen to later. The transcript is available if you bother to look for it. The decisions are published.
But they are not televised. That means that you might have to do a little reading, [egad!], or research, or even worse, some actual thinking.
If oral arguments were televised, the media would not report on the issues that are presented, but on personalities and the never ending search for gaffes. Did Justice Scalia look bored, or did Justice Thomas's face twitch... and if it did, what does it mean? Nancy Grace would analyze whether Justice Ginsberg's hair was styled one way or another.. and if one way rather than another, what it reveals about her psychology.
We would not hear a discussion about the grave constitutional and social issues that arise from the individual mandate because the television news media has become an entertainment circus. I strongly favor health care reform, but from what I know of the constitution the challenge to the individual mandate presents a difficult and complicated question.
The news media is incapable of giving it the coverage it needs. If they try, it will be lost in all the noise.
Televising oral argument is for lazy people who demand instant gratification. I hope they don't allow it.
Good points, we may miss out on body language interpretations but the written arguments will then be based solely on content and not emotional delivery.
The thought does come to mind if those arguing will try to sway the justices by proclaiming that the opposition just wants to throw the disabled and elderly under the bus. Should be interesting.
Whats best for me is not always whats best for you.
We need to be able to step back from the personal feelings about some of these issues and remember that the focus should be whats best for the majority (the majority being 50% +1person).
Sometimes we will agree with the majority and sometime we wont and then all you can hope is that the majority got it right.
OBOMBO and his liberal union thugs pushed this monster thru
with lies and they sure don't want this televised!
It's very funny to see all the left wing nut jobs on here who DEMAND that the SCOTUS televise the oral arguments, and that COngress should force them to do so. Well guess what idiots: Congress CANNOT force the SCOTUS to do anything. They cannot create a law just directed at them, they cannot mandate anything or propose a Constitutional admendment. SO get over it, if the SCOTUS decides it wants to televise the oral arguments, it'll be because THEY decide to.
And as far as the idiots who still believe a majority of Amercians support this overf priced, do nothing law, you have no clue either. It's over 60% against the bill!
Dave,
Did you even read what was already posted? I posted the most recent Gallup poll results above (see comment #2).
Congress can pass Constitutional Amendments along with the approval of 38 states that change the rules for the Supreme Court.
And the SUpreme Court can just strike down the law as unconstitutional. And if you think this COngress can get together & hold a constitutional convention & get 3/4's of both House to pass a amendment & then get 3/4's of the states to approve that amendment; and get all this done by next spring, you are truely a fruit cake!
SO, my % was off some, it is still a fact that a majority of Americans want the law repealed or struck down as un-constitutional. That is a simple FACT!
And it's not up to COngress to create al law that puts comeras in the courthouse. The Judicial branch is a separate but equal part of the government & Congress cannot control how they run their courts!
Dave,
The SCOTUS cannot just declare a law unconstitutional. Any new law must follow the court procedures and work its way to the Supreme Court which means someone must file a suit stating that the law is unconstitutional.
Constitutional Amendments usually take several years for passage, one took over 100 years. I was talking about you comment that was so very wrong … any Congress can start the process for a Constitutional Amendment.
And what does what the American people favor have to do with how the Supremes will rule? It is about the Constitutionality of the law now what people like. If they don’t like the SCOTUS ruling they can change the Constitution.
The court has to abide by the laws the same way the Executive Branch does. Congress can and does create laws that affect all three branches of Government.
“Liberal” and “Liberalism” are terms that some frequently use as an insult, often spontaneously without thinking. The trouble with that is it demonstrates a lack of understanding for what reality is. I neither consider myself “liberal” or “conservative” and try to be rational and objective, more a “centrist”, and seek to just support what is needed, with that being either mildly “liberal” or mildly “conservative” according to circumstances. Today it is very apparent that we have moved too far right and have problems because of that. Neither the problems nor the solutions have failed because they are too “liberal”. Government has been overly permissive with lax enforcement, deregulation, open markets and the like, placating the wealthy and “big money”, with that just encouraging run-away greed, gross dishonesty and self-indulgence, resulting in repeated cycles of financial collapse in multiple industries. Any efforts to solve the problems have been ineffective only because they have been aggressively faulted and stubbornly blocked to support political ambitions and to favor the interests of “big money” and the few. Bipartisan cooperation, which is how our government is effective, has been belligerently denied and a whole lot of money, influence and effort, both covert and overt, are constantly being spent to rationalize and sell “ultra-conservative” preferences. The current status of everything completely substantiates all of that.
Corporate America and the wealthy have actually seen their capital increase dynamically yet they aren’t spending, simply because they seek a more favorable economy. The poor are becoming poorer and the middle-class have been degraded and are struggling, all while the gap between the middle-class and the wealthy just keeps growing. We are literally being moved towards becoming a two-class society with only the few (1%) having substantially and the majority (99%) hurting with constantly shrinking capacity - and it would be very wrong to say it is a level playing field with equal opportunity, as position and power heavily control with government too often catering just to the few. The overall economy won’t rebound without the majority spending again and that can’t happen when only considering the wealthy’s needs and preferences (Bush-Cheney proved beyond any doubt that the “trickle down” theory is a total fraud that just makes the wealthy wealthier and solicits political support).
To stubbornly reject considering “liberal” action is to destine this country to continue as is, to even return to “more of the same” Bush-Cheney style. Those who strongly support “conservatism” as the only answer, if members of the majority, are simply being conned and manipulated to cater to the few and to neglect their own best interests. We don’t have to ever become a “liberal” society but we really have to recognize that being “ultra-conservative” doesn’t benefit the majority, where a realistic “centrist” position benefits everyone. Ron Paul and others advocate “small government” with minimal interference but that also can only have merit when maintaining enough controls, regulations and enforcements to recognize and prevent the problems that will occur with human nature clearly dictating that people with the opportunity will always take advantage. Today those with the advantage are doing everything they can, using power, influence and money, to effectively con the people and manipulate public opinion in order to achieve their having “more” - “more” for their insatiable appetite..
Personally, RGiles,
I've been called a lot worse than "liberal" by a much better class of people...
....but ultimately, you're right. The best path down the highway to recovery for the nation is somewhere down the middle of the road.
The law (whatever its bent) is only good enough to keep good people in line. Those that are inclined to break it (on both ends of the scale-rich or poor) will find a way to do it, regardless of the consequences. The ultimate responsibility of government in "promoting the general welfare" lies in safeguarding the rights of all citizens to seek to better themselves...especially those who endeavor to do so through their own labor and determination.
As you seem to understand, such cannot be done if too many people with the ability and the influence outside the proper representation provided through regular election by law, have the means to upset the apple cart at their leisure, and want to complain about all the bruised fruit strewn all over the place afterwards.
I had an gristled Army Sergeant tell me many years ago that "Sh!t always rolls downhill, Private!"
I remember telling him that for that to be true, then there had to be an a$$hole at the top of it.
Best 2 weeks of KP I ever pulled.....