Mediaboss Marketing

United States Supreme Court justices are pictured in October 2022: Sonia Sotomayor (front row from left), Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan; Amy Coney Barrett (back row from left), Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Alex Wong/Getty Images hide caption

United States Supreme Court justices are pictured in October 2022: Sonia Sotomayor (front row from left), Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan; Amy Coney Barrett (back row from left), Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

One year after they overturned the Roe v. Wade protection for abortion rights, the same six members of the U.S. Supreme Court have banned affirmative action the explicit use of race as a factor in college admissions.

Designed to address centuries of inequality in education, affirmative action had been a feature of the past several decades and was upheld by multiple Supreme Court rulings over that period. Now, the court has denounced the practice as a form of racial discrimination that violates the 14th Amendment, which was itself enacted to enfranchise the formerly enslaved.

This week's affirmative action ruling was nearly as notable a departure from precedent as last year's spiking of Roe, which had been the law of the land for half a century before the court called it "egregiously wrong."

It was a rare combination of two such far-reaching reversals, and it was accompanied by other rulings on sensitive issues by the same six justices. The combined effect has focused national attention on the court's dramatic swing to the right.

The most immediate explanation for the earthquake is the weight of three conservative justices appointed by former President Donald Trump and confirmed by a Republican-controlled Senate during his term. Trump was able to fill more seats in a single term than any president since Franklin Roosevelt.

But that is far from the whole story.

The current supermajority on the court exists because of major political factors that have favored Republicans in the postwar era and historic circumstances that were windows of opportunity for all six conservatives to be appointed and confirmed.

The longest-serving member of the current court, Clarence Thomas, was confirmed in 1991. At the time, Republicans had won the popular vote for president in seven of the previous ten election cycles (1952 - 1988).

But in the eight presidential elections since then, Republicans have won the popular vote only once. Two Republicans who lost the popular vote reached the Oval Office by prevailing in the Electoral College.

Those two George W. Bush and Donald Trump would eventually appoint the five justices who, with Thomas, make up the current 6-3 conservative supermajority.

The biggest contributor on this score was Trump's 2016 win in the Electoral College against Hillary Clinton. George W. Bush also came to the presidency initially via the Electoral College after losing the popular vote to Al Gore in 2000. (Bush did win the popular vote in his reelection year, before he appointed any justices.)

Republicans have also had far more luck in having Supreme Court vacancies occur when they controlled the White House and a working majority in the Senate.

While the presidency itself has swung between the two parties with some regularity since World War II, with Republicans holding the office for 40 years and Democrats for 38, no Democratic president in all those decades has been able to appoint and confirm a chief justice. By contrast, four of the six Republican presidents in that same period Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have named a chief justice.

Overall, in the 54 years since Nixon first took office, there have been 20 confirmed appointments to the court, counting chiefs and associate justices. Republican presidents have had 15 of them, Democratic presidents just five.

Throughout its history the Supreme Court has made momentous political decisions, driven at times by strong ideological leanings. But it has also had a tradition of idealizing a nonpartisan consensus and seeking unanimity whenever possible. It is a tradition the current chief justice often salutes and, at least at times, seems eager to serve.

In the past, as a rule, the Senate defaulted to confirming nominees in deference to the president even across party lines. If there was not an egregious issue or personal matter, the vote was often lopsided. Reagan appointee Antonin Scalia, a true conservative icon, was confirmed in 1986 without a dissenting vote.

Moreover, individual justices at times seemed to evolve in their views and alliances during their time on the court, sometimes frustrating the president who appointed them or elements of his party.

For example, when Thomas was appointed in 1991, seven other sitting justices had been appointed by Republicans, and an eighth was appointed by a Democrat but had a conservative record. Yet for all its party unity, the court of that time was not regarded as particularly conservative. Two of its members would come to be viewed as part of its "liberal wing" (David Souter and John Paul Stevens), two Reagan appointees were regarded as moderates or centrists (Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy) and a fifth, Harry Blackmun, had been the author of Roe v. Wade.

But change was already underway to nominate justices who would more reliably keep a conservative bent.

Then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 1991. J. David Ake/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

The highly partisan battle over Reagan appointee Robert Bork, whom the Senate rejected in 1987 after liberals blasted his record, had poisoned the well.

Thomas had an ideological profile much akin to Bork's, but he was confirmed in part because he declined to state opinions about controversial issues.

His hearing was not without controversy, however. Thomas faced accusations of sexual harassment by a former co-worker named Anita Hill. Thomas who is Black and was nominated to fill the vacancy left by Thurgood Marshall, the only African American ever to serve on the court at the time called Hill's televised testimony "a high-tech lynching for uppity Blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves."

Thomas' nomination was confirmed by the full Senate 52 to 48, saved by the votes of 11 Democrats unwilling to oppose him.

Back in 1991, Thomas was the first new justice on the court who had been associated with the Federalist Society, a campus gathering of conservative law students and faculty at Yale, the University of Chicago and other schools. Rising up in the wake of Roe, the group was formally founded in 1982.

Their animating idea was that federal judges were arrogating too much power to themselves and playing fast and loose with the Constitution to accommodate their own policy preferences. Many of the rulings of the Supreme Court under Chief Warren Burger and his predecessor Earl Warren were regarded as egregious examples of "activist judges" run amok.

Since then, the Society has grown and prospered in numbers, influence and fundraising prowess. Succeeding perhaps beyond its dreams, it now counts the six conservative members of the Supreme Court among its current or former members. It has had no small role in their elevation, aggressively recruiting and promoting candidates for the bench and supporting conservative Republican candidates for president.

The current court's conservative majority is now often seen as a Federalist Society majority.

John Roberts is sworn in as U.S. Supreme Court chief justice on Sept. 29, 2005, at the White House by Justice John Paul Stevens with Roberts' wife, Jane, and then-President George W. Bush. Paul J. Richards/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

John Roberts is sworn in as U.S. Supreme Court chief justice on Sept. 29, 2005, at the White House by Justice John Paul Stevens with Roberts' wife, Jane, and then-President George W. Bush.

Significant as it was to see the first President Bush nominate Thomas, the real breakthrough for movement conservatives in legal circles came in 2005. The circumstances were unique and highly personal.

O'Connor, who in 1982 became the first woman to join the court, decided to retire a bit early to spend more time with her husband, who was ill. She announced her retirement in 2005, and the just-reelected President W. Bush named John Roberts, a former Reagan adviser who had become a federal appeals court judge, to replace her. Roberts had been a Harvard undergrad and law student and had a reputation as a high-powered intellect.

But before Roberts could be confirmed, the court's senior-most member, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, died. So Bush withdrew his nomination for the O'Connor seat and put him up for chief instead in September 2005. Roberts' hearings began a week later, and he was confirmed in time for the court's traditional opening on the first Monday of October.

The Roberts hearings were largely non-contentious. Only minor controversies had arisen concerning Roberts' career, and he handled questions about his views with aplomb, referring to the court's task as that of an "umpire calling balls and strikes."

The O'Connor vacancy was to be filled by Bush's White House counsel, Harriet Miers, a Texan and a longtime associate of the Bush family. It seemed appropriate to replace O'Connor with another woman, and while Miers had not been a judge and was little known in the legal community, she had the support of some prominent Democrats in the Senate.

The problem arose on the other side, as a number of prominent conservatives denounced the choice. Bork called it a "disaster" and a "slap in the face" to the conservative movement that had been "building up ... for the last 20 years," a reference to the Federalist Society. The movement conservatives did not trust Miers to toe their line, as she did not have a history of ruling in the cases they cared most about.

As president of the Texas State Bar, she had supported an affirmative action program for women and minorities. The critics feared "another Souter," a reference to the first justice chosen by the first President Bush. The opposition grew loud enough that Miers chose to withdraw her name from candidacy.

Then-President George W. Bush applauds as Justice Samuel Alito speaks during a ceremonial swearing-in at the White House in February 2006. Alex Wong/Getty Images hide caption

Then-President George W. Bush applauds as Justice Samuel Alito speaks during a ceremonial swearing-in at the White House in February 2006.

At that point, Bush called on a prospect he had first interviewed years earlier for an appellate court position, Samuel Alito, who had actually been at Yale with Thomas in the 1970s. While he satisfied Miers' detractors, Alito also stirred the opposition party to action. Although Democrats had only 44 lawmakers in the Senate that fall, they had enough votes to mount a filibuster if they chose to, and there were Republicans willing to at least consider voting no.

Among those withholding commitments on Alito was a first-year senator from Illinois who had been a Harvard law student and a law professor at Chicago. His name was Barack Obama, and he declared himself "concerned that President Bush has wasted an opportunity to appoint a consensus nominee in the mold of [O'Connor] and has instead made a selection to appease the far right-wing of the Republican Party."

Sen. Edward Kennedy, a senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, interviewed Alito and took careful notes for his diary (later shared with biographer John A. Farrell). Kennedy asked Alito about Roe and recorded this as his answer: "I am a believer in precedents, people would find I adhere to that." But Kennedy was not convinced.

Kennedy had also written in his diary that he found Roberts "bright and smart and compelling," but that when he sought Roberts' commitments on social justice issues, Roberts "didn't want to get into that at all." Kennedy would eventually vote against both the Bush nominees.

Eighteen years later, it was Roberts who signed the opinion that erased affirmative action in college admissions this week.

The Alito hearings began the first week of January 2006, in an atmosphere of tension. Confirming Roberts to the Rehnquist vacancy was one thing, but Alito was taking the place of O'Connor, who had been a vote for moderation on abortion and racial gerrymandering and other issues.

The Democratic leader at the time and some of the chamber's liberals were ready to filibuster, protesting the choice of a candidate as ideological as they believed Alito to be.

The questions in the hearing room were tough. Alito had denied being a member of a certain alumni group that wanted fewer women and minorities admitted to Princeton, but evidence emerged that he had cited such a membership in the past. The questioning grew more hostile. There was talk of a subpoena for records of the group.

On the third day, one of the Republicans on the committee, Lindsey Graham, praised Alito and regretted what the nominee was enduring. Alito's wife, Martha-Ann Bomgardner, began to cry and left the room in tears after Graham sarcastically had asked Alito: "Are you really a closet bigot?" She later returned, composed and holding her husband's hand. But the image of her looking distraught became the focus of the day's proceeding in the media.

After that, the mood in the hearing room was palpably different, and the steam soon went out of the filibuster talk. Years later, as a president seeking support for his own court nominees, Obama would say he regretted entertaining the idea of a filibuster against Alito.

At the time, Democrats were increasingly focused on that fall's election, one in which they hoped to recapture the Senate majority. So the filibuster did not happen. Later that month, with just one Republican breaking ranks against him and four Democrats in favor, Alito was confirmed 58-42.

Last year, Alito wrote the decision in the Dobbs case that overturned Roe.

Go here to see the original:
How the Supreme Court's conservative majority happened, from ... - NPR

Outliers who enter the presidential derby usually broadcast their plans before running, as Trump did, forming an exploratory committee for the office in 2000, before finally running in earnest in 2016. But outside of Dwight D. Eisenhower a genuine war hero almost never does a figure without a political resume and not so much as a previous head feint toward the White House launch a serious presidential campaign out of the blue as Kennedy did in April. Some people give more forethought to picking a dressing for their salad than Kennedy seems to have given to his run for president.

But Kennedy doesnt care that hes losing because winning the White House isnt his objective. One clue that Kennedy doesnt crave the political power that comes with the presidency is that, unlike his siblings, cousins and other Kennedy offspring (Joseph P. Kennedy II, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Patrick J. Kennedy, Joseph P. Kennedy III, Edward M. Kennedy Jr., Mark Kennedy Shriver, Bobby Shriver), he has never sought public office. The closest he has ever come to serving in a legislature was in 2000 when he briefly considered running for Daniel Patrick Moynihans open U.S. Senate seat (which Hillary Clinton slipped into) and in 2008, when he appears to have been on the New York governors shortlist to fill the seat when Clinton vacated it to become secretary of State. Or, to give him the benefit of the doubt, it could be that Kennedy has always craved power but wanted to start at the top.

What Kennedy does undeniably desire is public attention, something his presidential campaign is delivering, with critical profiles in the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time, the Atlantic and a particularly damning and comprehensive one by Rebecca Traister in New York magazine. In just a couple of months, Kennedy has gone from that anti-vaccine guy to a staple of cable news coverage, making him The Top Kennedy for now, even if much of the publicity is bad. Its always been a competitive clan, so hes got to be happy that he now occupies a larger presence in the public mind than his cousin Caroline Kennedy, an ambassador to Japan and now Australia, larger than her brother John Kennedy Jr., who dominated the headlines until his accidental death in 1999. Because its been so long since his father and famous uncles died, Bobby Jr. might even have eclipsed them as The Top Kennedy among younger voters.

The political gene, which often comes bundled with the one for narcissism, never adequately thrives until fed by some form of adulation. Even the negative adulation of the recent profiles can be read as I must be doing something right because theyre all knocking me for somebody as thirsty for attention as Kennedy. Hes winning there, too.

In just a couple of months, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has gone from that anti-vaccine guy to a staple of cable news coverage. | Josh Reynolds/AP Photo

Kennedys candidacy has broadened the platform for his previously banned-by-Facebook-and-Instagram outr ideas about vaccines, not to mention his views on his fathers assassination, gender dysphoria and chemicals, antidepressants and school shootings, the CIA, and the stolen 2004 election. That adds to the considerable platform he has already built on his podcasts and his bestselling screed The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. The current campaign has and will continue to expand his exposure until he concedes the nomination to Biden.

Kennedy may have spent his career as an environmental activist and litigator on the political sidelines, but hes well aware of the dividends that can be earned from running a long-shot presidential campaign. As laid out in a recent Insider article, the typical dark horse candidacy is mostly about climbing the rungs of power. Would former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg be the secretary of Transportation today if he hadnt run in 2020? Would Kamala Harris, who polled below Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders for almost the entire 2020 primary campaign, and frequently did worse than Buttigieg, have been tapped as Bidens running mate if she had not run? Would Sanders possess his current clout if not for his two unexpectedly strong forays? Failed candidacies have produced book contracts, cable TV deals, paid speaking engagements, lobbying gigs and proximity to power.

The current Kennedy moment will soon be swamped by the Biden machine. But every day this final heir to Americas second greatest political dynasty spends on the hustings, he will continue rolling up winnings like an undetected card counter in Las Vegas.

The greatest? The Bush family, of course. Send your winnings to [emailprotected]. No new email alert subscriptions are being honored at this time. My social media accounts Twitter, Mastodon, Post, Bluesky, and Notes want to welcome a baby brother: [http://@[emailprotected]]Threads. My RSS feed wants to kill them as they sleep.

See more here:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Real Motive - POLITICO

(Below the Belt) Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Mary Alice Hatch and Sen Orrin Hatch meet to discuss funding for endometriosis research, in a scene from the documentary "Below the Belt," scheduled to air Wednesday, June 21, 2023, on KUED, PBS Utah.

| June 21, 2023, 12:00 p.m.

The documentary Below the Belt: The Last Health Taboo is full of shocking facts about endometriosis and surprising real-life stories from women who suffer from it. And there is a bit of surprise for Utahns on the political side of the story.

Not only did the late Sen. Orrin Hatch work with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, but he praised her. And hugged her.

Hatch, who retired from the Senate in 2019 and died in April 2022, championed allocating more funds to endometriosis research. As does Warren. And Hillary Rodham Clinton. And Mitt Romney, who succeeded Hatch in the Senate.

All four current and former senators are listed as executive producers of Below the Belt, which airs Wednesday at 9 p.m. on PBS/Channel 7. Thats a fairly common way to promote a documentary, and they werent actually involved in the production.

Romney and Warren co-hosted a screening of the film in Washington, D.C., in March, and Romney jokingly acknowledged there were strange bedfellows involved: It is strange to see Elizabeth Warren and Mitt Romney promoting the same thing, he said, according to The Hill.

Hatchs involvement came about because his granddaughter, Emily Hatch Manwaring, is among the one in 10 women who suffers from endometriosis. She and her mother, Mary Alice Hatch, became advocates for more government funding for research.

(According to the Mayo Clinic, endometriosis is an often painful disorder in which tissue similar to the tissue that normally lines the inside of your uterus grows outside your uterus. It can cause pain sometimes severe, and fertility problems also may develop.)

Below the Belt is filled with alarming facts: Most doctors cant diagnose endometriosis, and dont know how to treat it. It takes a decade for most women to be diagnosed. Most common treatments including hysterectomies dont work. Most health insurance wont pay for the most effective treatment.

(Rick Bowmer | AP file photo) Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, gestures to the Utah House during a 2018 visit at the Utah State Capitol.

There are multiple heart-wrenching stories told by suffering women, including Hatchs granddaughter. Hatch Manwaring began experiencing severe effects of endometriosis when she was just 13. There are home movies of her growing up, dancing, water skiing, learning to drive and then she is grimacing in pain because it feels like a knife is going through my stomach.

In an interview on PBS Newshour, Below the Belt director Shannon Cohn said endometriosis advocates began working with Orrin Hatch in 2017 and that he, his granddaughter and his daughter-in-law began really pushing endometriosis forward in a meaningful way. And that after Orrin Hatchs retirement, Sen. Mitt Romney stepped in his shoes and really pushed it forward alongside Sen. Warren.

At the March screening at the Hart Senate Office Building, Warren said, We are all here tonight, in large part, in this room, because of Orrin Hatch.

Cohen said it was wonderful to see lawmakers from both sides of the aisle come together on an issue, especially in todays political climate and to see them say, What? Its not a political issue. This is a human issue.

(Leah Hogsten | The Salt Lake Tribune) Sen. Mitt Romney talks with reporters during a visit to the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District's Education Center, May 5, 2023.

In a phone call with his daughter-in-law that is included in the documentary, Orrin Hatch says, Ive passed more health care bills than anybody in Congress. Id hardly ever heard of this until my granddaughter explained it to me.

We need to make people aware. I mean, you know, this is a very widespread problem for an awful lot of women. Weve got to do something about this, and Im all for it. Youve got to guide me and help me, thats all.

When Mary Alice Hatch says that they need to engage other prominent members of Congress in their efforts, Orrin Hatch replies, We have some excellent people on the Democratic side. And I think Elizabeth Warren is a good one. Shes a firebrand who irritates most Republicans, but she does not irritate me. So Id be very happy to work with her. I can get that done.

Hatch is praising and promising to work with not just any Democrat, but one of the most liberal and progressive members of the U.S. Senate.

Warren asks how long it takes to get an endometriosis diagnosis, and she is shocked when Mary Alice Hatch says the average time is 10 years. And the Utah senator tells her that he has seen his granddaughter when shes doubled up and really cant stand. The pain is so intense and so terrible.

Cameras were there when the Hatches met Warren, and there were hugs all around. Hatch Manwaring hugs Warren and her grandfather. The two senators hug each other somewhat awkwardly.

Im outnumbered, Orrin Hatch says.

This is how we get real change, Warren replies.

See more here:
Orrin Hatch, Elizabeth Warren, Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton team up to fight endometriosis - Salt Lake Tribune

Right-wing allegations about Biden and Ukraine in particular usually insinuate that, while serving as vice president, the elder Biden pressured a Ukrainian prosecutor into resigning to stop an investigation into Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company on whose board Hunter sat at the time. This allegation has some factual basis: Hunter did serve on the companys board, and his father did pressure the Ukrainian government about the prosecutor in charge of corruption cases.

But it is wrong in one critical way: ThenVice President Biden pressured Ukraine to crack down harder on corruption, not go easier on it. His push came as part of a broader effort by the Obama administration and the European Union to root out corruption in the Ukrainian political and economic system. None of this was secret: Major news outlets covered Bidens trip to Ukraine in 2015 and the reason why it was happening. (By contrast, Trumps attempt to coerce Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy into smearing Hunter and his father by withholding military aid from Ukraine actually was corrupt, leading to his first impeachment in 2019.)

This reality has not deterred Trump, his allies, and other prominent Republicans from pushing the narrative that Biden was trying to protect his corrupt son. But again, their goal is not to determine whether either Biden actually did anything wrong, although they would be thrilled to find evidence to that effect. These investigations real purpose is better understood as a smear campaign against political opponents and future Democratic presidential candidates.

Read this article:
Republicans Are Smearing the Bidens Like They Did Hillary Clinton - The New Republic

We were born in the 1940s on the Dorsey dairy farm on Buckhorn Road in southern Carroll County. We rode our bikes on the dirt roads, and it was a thrill when we finally were able to pedal all the way to the top of the hill to Aunt Matties.

We have enjoyed our bikes and various trails with our children and grandchildren. Time has passed and we still live on a portion of the farm on Buckhorn Road. Judy has had to have two knee and two hip replacements, so riding a regular bike to enjoy the natural areas and countryside trails is no longer possible.

We now own and enjoy trail riding on our class 1 and 2 e-bikes. We pedal for a few seconds to give power and have the assist feature take over for a few seconds for us to recover. We only use the higher function when peddling up a steep hill. Judy is now considering an e-trike for additional stability.

We have always supported trail formation and maintenance in Carroll County. We need and request the Board of County Commissioners to allow e-bikes on the existing and future Carroll County trail system.

K. Marlene Conaway and Judy E. Gray, Winfield

Both Hillary Clinton and President Donald Trump had classified information in their homes. Compare how President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden Department of Justice and FBI treated Hillary Clinton to how President Bidens same offices treated Trump.

Clinton was Obamas secretary of state from 2009 to 2013 and had a private server containing classified information and emails / in her home at Chappaqua, New York and 13 mobile devices to access these emails.

Clinton received a congressional subpoena from the House Select Committee on Benghazi on March 4, 2015 to turn over her emails. Three weeks later, she turned over 30,000 emails, but her IT specialist, Paul Combetta, used BleachBit software to delete 31,000 e-mails, and Clintons aide, Justin Cooper, destroyed two of her mobile devices with a hammer; the others were never found. In July 2015 the FBI started investigating Clintons handling of classified information.

Former President Bill Clinton met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on June 27, 2016 on the tarmac of Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix. On July 2, the FBI interviewed, Hillary Clinton and her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, who was a witness if not subject of the investigation.

On July 5, 5 FBI Director James Comey set the precedent, when he exonerated Hillary Clinton of any criminal charges, saying the FBI found no evidence of intentional misconduct, although she and her aides were extremely careless handling highly classified information.

July 2016 also saw the Obama/Biden FBI, without any credible evidence to legally justify an investigation, lie to the FISA court to started operation Crossfire Hurricane -to spy on Trumps campaign and launch the Russia collusion hoax.

In September 2016, the New York Police Department confirmed they were investigating U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner for sexting a teenage girl and found emails they believed relevant to the investigation of tens of thousands of Hillary Clinton on his laptop and other devices. Weiner, at the time, was married to Huma Abedin, Clintons deputy chief of staff.

No action was taken until Oct. 28 when Comey told Congress the FBI would investigate these emails. On Nov. 6, Comey told Congress they didnt change his conclusion.

Although the Department of Justice had been communicating with Trump about his classified documents, on Aug. 8, 2022, armed FBI agents, with guns drawn, raided Trumps home at Mar-a-Lago and denied his lawyers access to their search while they seize and photographed documents, then released photos to the media. On June 8 this year, the Department of Justice indicted Trump for mishandling classified documents for violating the Espionage Act, obstruction and false statements.

The Constitution guarantees equal justice under the law. Did Trump and Clinton receive equal justice?

Carl Burdette, Westminster

Originally posted here:
Permit e-bikes on Carroll County trails; Trump, Hillary Clinton and ... - Baltimore Sun