March 13, 2014

"If Republicans win a Senate majority in 2014, there's no guarantee they'll confirm anyone, no matter how moderate, to the Supreme Court during the Kenyan socialist's final two years."

Writes Bloomberg's Jonathan Bernstein.
Any Republican nominee for the court will be as Federalist-society solid as John Roberts or Samuel Alito.... [A] court in which Breyer and Ginsburg are replaced by nominees from any conceivable Republican president will be a court that rapidly erases their legacies....

Ginsburg and Breyer might not prefer a Supreme Court that is highly partisan and ideologically divided, in which retirements are strategic moves. But that's the court they've got. If they care about the principles they've fought for, they should retire in time for confirmation battles this year.
That's under-analyzed. Is there enough time left to "retire in time"? The new Senate won't be seated until January 2015, but how would it work for the Senate to be dealing with one or two Supreme Court nominees as 33 Senators face reelection and the very question of which party will get control of the Senate is hotly fought? Theoretically, Obama could nominate individuals who would present the Democratic Party in the most favorable light, but what sort of characters would they be? Could Democrats agree, and if not, is their disagreement something that would make Democrats look good in the fall election season?

If Obama would be forced to pick innocuous moderates, he might as well wait until after the election and risk having to seek approval from a Senate that contains more Republicans. And I think that the more Republicans end up in the Senate in 2015, the more likely it is that a Democrat will be elected President in 2016, so Ginsburg and Breyer can just as well stay put. Assuming they're plotting this all out politically.

76 comments:

Marshal said...

Maybe Reid should change the rules such that only 40 votes are required to confirm.

Theoretically, Obama could nominate individuals who would present the Democratic Party in the most favorable light, but what sort of characters would they be?

Not very representative of Democrats, as he seems to have concluded.

traditionalguy said...

Somebody call Bill.

The deal should be for Hillary to defer to Rahm's 2016 nomination provided Bill is nominated and confirmed to the SCOTUS seat of a resigning Ginsberg in 2015.

David said...

Does he think that a sitting justice will respond to this crap? I don't. This kind of slime bubbles to the surface when the other means of encouraging them to resign have been exhausted.

If I were an aging liberal justice, I'd beef up security though.

Revenant said...

Any Republican nominee for the court will be as Federalist-society solid as John Roberts or Samuel Alito

So "not very solid at all", then?

cokaygne said...

You're right. People hate both parties. After 2008-2010 and Obamacare, only professionals desire having the same party control both Congress and the administration. Better a hapless liberal Democrat president checked by a know-nothing Congress of weirdos than a President Cruz unckecked by anyone.

pubeditor said...

"I think that the more Republicans end up in the Senate in 2015, the more likely it is that a Democrat will be elected President in 2016..."

An interesting thought. Would you care to unpack this a bit?

I suppose one might argue: if more Republicans gain seats in the Senate -- and especially if Republicans gain a majority in the Senate -- then they will do things that make Republicans look bad, which will hurt the Republican nominee in 2016.

Or: If Republicans gain control of both chambers of Congress in 2015, the People will be afraid of giving the GOP too much power, so they will vote against the Republican presidential candidate in 2016.

I don't know if these analyses are correct, but it's food for thought.

David said...

Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg View columnist covering U.S. politics. A political scientist, he previously wrote "A Plain Blog About Politics." He is co-editor of "The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2012." Bernstein has also written for the Washington Post, Salon, the American Prospect, Washington Monthly and the New Republic. After receiving his doctorate at the University of California at Berkeley, he taught at the University of Texas at San Antonio and DePauw University before he began blogging. He lives in San Antonio, Texas.

Failed academic?

MattL said...

And most importantly, have they asked the Koch brothers what they want to do? I hear they're running the Senate these days.

Paul said...

Hell I don't care about the appointments, I want them to IMPEACH.

Impeach and repeal Obamacare.

Let them hold up the appointments and wait for a better president.

But if Obama keeps up his lawbreaking, then impeach him... and Biden.

Paul said...

Koch brothers?

15 liberal fat cat billionaires give more money EACH than the Koch brothers do.

And that is a fact.

And go look at how many millionaires are in Congress. Keery, when in the senate, alone was, and is, worth almost a quarter of a billion.

Scott said...

I think Obama and his party suck big time. But for Jonathan Bernstein to glibly refer to the president as "the Kenyan socialist" in a presumably straight piece of political analysis is grotesque.

Robert Cook said...

"The Kenyan Socialist," eh? That's a pretty good indicator the writer of the phrase is either an ignoramus, an idiot, or a propagandist for a point of view that requires Obama be other twice over, (when in fact, he is right in the middle of the Washington mainstream...if he had an "R" by his name he would be seen as a good Republican).

Scott said...

(Oh great, a leftist pedant is agreeing with me.)

Nonapod said...

Hell I don't care about the appointments, I want them to IMPEACH.

Even if the Republicans get the Senate it's highly, highly unlikely that Obama will ever be impeached.

MattL said...

Kenyan socialist is at least more accurate than, say, pragmatist.

I took that as an over the top attempt at humor. I think that goes along with his opener about "more gullible and/or excitable pundits" and later using the word "hooey."

He should stick to his day...oh..err...

harrogate said...

"And I think that the more Republicans end up in the Senate in 2015, the more likely it is that a Democrat will be elected President in 2016"

That is probably true, "more likely" is of course a far cry from "likely."

southcentralpa said...

The more Senate seats picked up in '14, the more likely a Donk gets the WH in '16??

With control of both houses, we might finally get some traction on getting some answers about the malfeasance of the this admin which would make it LESS likely to get a successor of the same party, I'd say ...

Also, with the House and the Senate, you make the incumbent President have to veto some very popular bills, which again makes it less likely to get a successor from the same party.

PLUS, all the people who thought they'd sit out the slam-dunk '12 presidential election will vote like the Republic depends on it (and it just might).

*alarms bells flash at OFA cyber ops* *cue the professional trolls*

AJ Lynch said...

"Kenyan Socialist" is kinda catchy!

Scott M said...

if he had an "R" by his name he would be seen as a good Republican

How many dents did you have to put in the wall behind your head before you allowed yourself to type that sentence?

David said...

Earth to Cook! Earth to Cook!

The guy was being ironic when he referred to Obama as a Kenyan Socialist. Ho-Ho-Ho.

Liberal humor.

Ho-ho.

Did your knee dislocate when it jerked, Cookie?

Scott M said...

"Kenyan Socialist" is kinda catchy!

Sorta, but not as catchy as Keynesian Kenyan Socialist.

Steven said...

"highly partisan and ideologically divided"? The statistical analyses say otherwise.

Marshal said...

MattL said...
I took [Kenyan socialist] as an over the top attempt at humor.


He's writing in the voice of the Republicans his hypothitical has in control of the Senate. It's not humor, it's mockery signaling other leftists they can read on because he's with them.

Todd said...

Marshal said...
MattL said...
I took [Kenyan socialist] as an over the top attempt at humor.

He's writing in the voice of the Republicans his hypothitical has in control of the Senate. It's not humor, it's mockery signaling other leftists they can read on because he's with them.

Is that one of them their "dog whistles" we keep hearing about?

MadisonMan said...

Why the assumption that the next replacement will be of a liberal justice?

The world would not end if 2 justices died and were not replaced. There is no magic in the number 9. I guess it would be disaster for people who like to clerk for SC justices, as the numbers would shrink by 22%, but other than that?

MattL said...

Marshal, I think I agree with you. I couldn't put my finger on it when I posted about it originally, but you're right. The humor is supposed to be at the expense of those of us who blindly follow the Kochs into the pit of...wherever we're going.

MattL said...

MadisonMan,

You cannot be serious. Think of the unchildren who may never be aborted if a liberal does not replace a liberal!

Todd said...

Careful with what you are saying there, MadisonMan. Obama might use his pen to put 4 (hell why not 10) extra justices on the bench. You know, to just make sure and all.

damikesc said...

The deal should be for Hillary to defer to Rahm's 2016 nomination provided Bill is nominated and confirmed to the SCOTUS seat of a resigning Ginsberg in 2015.

Isn't Bill disbarred?

Bruce Hayden said...

Here is an idea if the Republicans get control of the Senate - Impeach AG Holder. He has already been found in contempt of Congress (or at least the House). President Obama is probably untouchable, but Holder? Same race problem, but he has also been almost as lawless as his boss, and is in a position where that shouldn't be tolerated.

MadisonMan said...

Obama might use his pen to put 4 (hell why not 10) extra justices on the bench.

Job Creation!

Robert Cook said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

"Isn't Bill disbarred?"

It was only for a term of five years. After five years, he was free to reapply for his law license. He may or may not have, I don't know.

MattL said...

There's no SCOTUS requirement that Justices be lawyers, even though that's all that get nominated any more.

Kansas City said...

Neither Breyer nor Ginsburg seem likely to give up their prized jobs for any reason other than debilitating illness or death.

It is true that the composition of the Senate and the 2016 election will have profound effects on the Supreme Court. It is unlikely, but perhaps we will get lucky and events will somehow stop or moderate the unfortunate situation of appointments merely being efforts, typicaly successful, to get a justice of your political idealogy who then will make the political decisions on the bench that everyone expects (including the president who appointed him or her). Except arguably Roberts, all recent appointments have been idealogical ones who consistently rule based on their ideology, not any attempt at an objective assessment of the law or the case.

Michael K said...

"if he had an "R" by his name he would be seen as a good Republican"

Help, Cook has been kidnapped by a MOBY !

Robert Cook said...

"'if he had an "R" by his name he would be seen as a good Republican'

"How many dents did you have to put in the wall behind your head before you allowed yourself to type that sentence?


None at all. Given that the sole purpose of the Republican party is to serve the ends of Wall Street and further the Pentagon war machine, Obama cannot be seen as having been any other than an exemplary Republican...same as Bill Clinton. They're better at it than the Republicans, who are coarse and graceless and obviously up to no good; by contrast, Clinton and Obama are so good at their con that the citizens hurt by their policies support them without hesitation. They are perfect illustrations of the concept of the "anti-Christ."

cubanbob said...

If Obama would be forced to pick innocuous moderates, he might as well wait until after the election and risk having to seek approval from a Senate that contains more Republicans. And I think that the more Republicans end up in the Senate in 2015, the more likely it is that a Democrat will be elected President in 2016, so Ginsburg and Breyer can just as well stay put. Assuming they're plotting this all out politically. "

And why do you think that? Do you assume the voters are going to be happy with the economy and ObamaCare in 2016? Most people don't vote based on Supreme Court or other federal judgeship appointments. But they do vote for their wallets so they might vote Democrat if the Democrats can persuade a sufficient number of people that from their party's stash they are going to get free gas and no mortgages.

Scott M said...

Given that the sole purpose of the Republican party is to serve the ends of Wall Street and further the Pentagon war machine

There's at least two dents in the wall, right there. The one you made right before you typed "furthering the Pentagon war machine" must have really put stars in front of your eyes.

By the bye, what other type of machine do you suppose the Pentagon is supposed to be, what with the bullets and tanks and missiles and fighter jets and such?

cubanbob said...


Blogger Robert Cook said...
"'if he had an "R" by his name he would be seen as a good Republican'

"How many dents did you have to put in the wall behind your head before you allowed yourself to type that sentence?

None at all. Given that the sole purpose of the Republican party is to serve the ends of Wall Street and further the Pentagon war machine, Obama cannot be seen as having been any other than an exemplary Republican...same as Bill Clinton. They're better at it than the Republicans, who are coarse and graceless and obviously up to no good; by contrast, Clinton and Obama are so good at their con that the citizens hurt by their policies support them without hesitation. They are perfect illustrations of the concept of the "anti-Christ."

3/13/14, 3:52 PM"

The good thing about being a communist is that no one can get to the left of you. That's why it's so easy for RC to damn both parties.

Jim said...

The heck with clerks, RBG and Breyer should interview for food tasters and look under their cars before starting them. If the machine Democrats can't get their way with persuasion, they've been known to use muscle here in KC.

Jim said...

Every time I see something like "Kenyan Socialist" or "the ACA was really a Heritage plan," I know the GOP is winning.

khesanh0802 said...

I must strongly disagree with Ann on the effect of a Republican senate majority on the 2016 presidential race.
We have not seen the Congress work effectively with Harry Reid at the helm of the Senate. If Harry is gone then there is going to be a lot of popular legislation being sent to the President as southcentralpa points out. Done well the leverage on the Dems is going to be tremendous. I suspect it will be such that Hillary - who will be forced to run on Hillary/Obamacare - may, in fact, decide to forgo a run. Then who do the Dems have on the bench? Joe Biden, John Kerry, Zeke's brother (who those outside Chicago don't know much about)? I know, Jerry Brown!

wholelottasplainin' said...

"And I think that the more Republicans end up in the Senate in 2015, the more likely it is that a Democrat will be elected President in 2016"

Yeah, after two more years of gridlock, as Obama vetoes GOP-sponsored legislation that passes both Houses, Americans are gonna be just BEGGING for more gridlock!

wholelottasplainin' said...

"the ACA was really a Heritage plan,"


Yes! And the GOP repeatedly brought that plan to the floor of the House and unsuccessfully voted on it for the past twenty years, only to be stymied by the Democrats...

Riiiiiiight........

Seeing Red said...

40 years of top democrats like Chappaquiddick Ted and Bossy Evita and the best the democrats could put together was a 20-year old GOP think tank suggestion?

LOLOLOLOL

Robert Cook said...

"By the bye, what other type of machine do you suppose the Pentagon is supposed to be, what with the bullets and tanks and missiles and fighter jets and such?"

Preferably a smaller one, one that eats far less of our tax dollars, and one that is mostly inactive, to be used only for defense, rather than as a tool in our ongoing aggressive bid to establish dominance over the world and its resources.

Robert Cook said...

"The good thing about being a communist (sic) is that no one can get to the left of you. That's why it's so easy for RC to damn both parties."

It's easy to damn both parties because they have become essentially the same party, with differences largely of style and rhetoric. (Oh, there may be a few more rational people among the Dems, a few more kooks and ideologues among the Republicans, but they're all so hungry for money to fund their campaigns they're almost all total whores to their paymasters in the end.)

Left Bank of the Charles said...

I can't imagine Breyer or Ginsburg would retire when they have so much more to say at oral arguments.

Marshal said...

Jim said...
Every time I see something like "Kenyan Socialist" or "the ACA was really a Heritage plan," I know the GOP is winning.


They might be winning minds but they're losing society. Institutions have a far greater impact on how law and society work than individuals. And since institutions largely enforce leftist ideological conformance as a condition of entry that's not going to change even if the country moves somewhat to the right.

MadisonMan said...

Do you assume the voters are going to be happy with the economy and ObamaCare in 2016?

Democrats running can blame Congress.

cubanbob said...

khesanh0802 said...
I must strongly disagree with Ann on the effect of a Republican senate majority on the 2016 presidential race.
We have not seen the Congress work effectively with Harry Reid at the helm of the Senate. If Harry is gone then there is going to be a lot of popular legislation being sent to the President as southcentralpa points out. Done well the leverage on the Dems is going to be tremendous. I suspect it will be such that Hillary - who will be forced to run on Hillary/Obamacare - may, in fact, decide to forgo a run. Then who do the Dems have on the bench? Joe Biden, John Kerry, Zeke's brother (who those outside Chicago don't know much about)? I know, Jerry Brown!
3/13/14, 4:25 PM "

If they win, I would love to see the Republican's propose a bill to make ObamaCare applicable to everyone, no waivers, exemptions, applicable to all starting with every federal, state and local employee and retiree along with every judge in the country and every elected and appointed official. I wonder how many Democrats would vote against it and if Obama would veto that bill.

Mark said...

--Every time I see something like "Kenyan Socialist" or "the ACA was really a Heritage plan," I know the GOP is winning.

That Kenyan Socialist line was one of them that got the guy re-elected. Obama derangement syndrome worked as well to unseat Obama as Bush derangement syndrome worked in '04.

Two years of a Republican Congress and Dems will blame them for not fixing the evident problems with Obamacare. Repeal is fantasy, voters know this ... you cannot run against something you could have fixed but didn't. Careful what you wish for, it often carries unexpected costs.

Revenant said...

"The Kenyan Socialist," eh? That's a pretty good indicator the writer of the phrase is either an ignoramus, an idiot, or a propagandist for a point of view that requires Obama be other twice over

I'm not ruling out the first two options, but you're kind of missing the obvious explanation: that he's being sarcastic.

Revenant said...

Repeal is fantasy, voters know this ... you cannot run against something you could have fixed but didn't.

Well, repeal in 2015 or 2016 is fantasy, obviously. Repeal after the election of a Republican President isn't, especially with ever-increasing numbers of people hostile to the law.

Hell, the precedent has already been established by Obama himself that the President can simply overrule any parts of Obamacare he thinks aren't feasible. Assuming the next Republican President doesn't have more respect for the constitution than the current occupant has, he or she wouldn't even need control of Congress.

cubanbob said...

"
Two years of a Republican Congress and Dems will blame them for not fixing the evident problems with Obamacare. Repeal is fantasy, voters know this ... you cannot run against something you could have fixed but didn't. Careful what you wish for, it often carries unexpected costs.

3/13/14, 5:22 PM "

The Democrats passed this abortion 5 years ago, they had had ample time to fix it.

As I said before best way to get this monstrosity repealed is to first force everyone to suffer it. The Republicans should make it a point to fix the law by making everyone with no exceptions subject to it. No waivers, exemptions or delays for anyone. If they win in November and pass it in early January with no delay in implementation by 2016 even the Democrats will be campaigning for repeal.

Fen said...

Can't Obama just delay midterm elections for another year? That seems to be okay now...

Peter said...

"If Obama would be forced to pick innocuous moderates, he might as well wait until after the election and risk having to seek approval from a Senate that contains more Republicans."

He may as well appoint the innocuous moderates. He won't have to spend any political capital to get them approved, and once they're on the Court they're likely to discover they're hidden save-the-world Leftist tendencies anyway.

Steven said...

Repeal is fantasy, voters know this ... you cannot run against something you could have fixed but didn't.

Obamacare can't be fixed.

Obama just killed it with the new waiver policy that gutted the mandate. The exchanges are going to implode, with fewer insurers and higher premiums for both of the next two enrollment cycles. Spiral of death, just like the disaster the Obama Administration warned if the mandate was held unconstitutional. The exchanges will only host plans too expensive for anyone without a trust fund.

Nobody's going to pass a public option through a Republican House when it couldn't get through a Democratic Senate, so the only way the "exchanges" can then be fixed is by gutting things like community rating, coverage of pre-existing conditions, and minimum coverage levels. Which is to say, "fixing" Obamacare would require repealing the popular parts and leaving the unpopular parts in place.

Nobody in Congress is stupid enough to agree to a fix on those terms; instead, what will happen is repeal, with a small fig leaf to pretend Obamacare has a legacy.

wildswan said...

There will be events between 2016 and now such as Russia invading the Ukraine, Chicago pension fund collapse, more and more devastation from Obamacare. Even a whole lot of jobs in Wisconsin affecting Scott walker's chances. The DOJ and DeBlasio closing charter schools in minority areas. Hearts and minds will change. The Supremes are just a small part of the whole thing

Chuck said...

Time was, we thought Anthony Kennedy was an "innocuous moderate."

Michael K said...

"Nobody in Congress is stupid enough to agree to a fix on those terms; instead, what will happen is repeal, with a small fig leaf to pretend Obamacare has a legacy."

I don't know how this will end but Obamacare was designed by a bunch of people who know nothing about healthcare. At least Hillarycare was designed by academics who knew something although not how private health care works.

HMO were the Republican plan to control costs and it was a worthwhile experiment but nobody in the GOP wants to be identified with them as they are hated.

The Washington types of both parties don't understand free markets. They try different flavors of top down control. The for-profit HMOs were an even bigger fiasco than the old regulated model.

What will probably happen is that Obamacare will be made "voluntary." That is already happening with the mandates. Next we come to legislation that restores health IRAs and allows private fee-for-service medicine that uses a market mechanism, such as allowing balance billing. We have been plagued with plans that assure that everything is "covered" at the price of cutting payments to physicians and hospitals.

"Concierge" practices will become common for the middle class where the payment is outside insurance or Medicare and covers all outpatient care. They are already getting there.

Obamacare can continue for the Democrats and the poor because it is already Medicaid for all. The budget will be the issue there.

Catastrophic insurance will fill in the hospital care for the middle class. It will be a cash based market system.

gregq said...

If they care about the principles they've fought for, they should retire in time for confirmation battles this year.

If they had any principles, they would care more about the Constitution, than about their personal political desires.

But then they wouldn't be leftists "heroes", that the left wishes to shove out the door.

gregq said...

Or: If Republicans gain control of both chambers of Congress in 2015, the People will be afraid of giving the GOP too much power, so they will vote against the Republican presidential candidate in 2016.

Yep, just like the Democrats taking Congress in 2006 kept people from voting for Obama in 2008.

Oh, wait....

By the time 2016 rolls around, far more Americans will have been harmed by ObamaCare, than were harmed in Iraq.

eric said...

This is a case of liberals who live in a bubble and say nasty, stupid, stuff about Republicans and then they believe it. Because they said it to one another.

The truth?

The Republicans will get a majority but the tea party and conservatives won't. This means guys like John McCain will still be there. And he will throw together a gang of eight or ten or twelve, whatever he needs to feel good and get the media (Democrats with bylines) to love him again.

And together they will have the votes needed to put anyone Obama wants. Let's say the Republicans end up with a huge win and get 55 Senate seats.

Does anyone really believe there aren't 6 Republicans and 100% of the Democrats ready to "compromise"?

This guy is living in LA LA land.

EMD said...

The good thing about being a communist is that no one can get to the left of you. That's why it's so easy for RC to damn both parties.

I damn both parties all the time, and I'm not a Communist.

Scott M said...

Preferably a smaller one, one that eats far less of our tax dollars, and one that is mostly inactive, to be used only for defense, rather than as a tool in our ongoing aggressive bid to establish dominance over the world and its resources.

Yeah, see, we weren't really discussing the size of the machine or it's budget. So no points for you on that non-answer.

You wrote "Pentagon war machine" like you spitting out rotten fruit and my question, in essence, asked if not a war machine (with all of the war hardware and training, etc), what sort of machine are they supposed to be?

harrogate said...

Often what we see is the suggestion that it is *unseemly* to suggest that these justices should consider retiring during Obama's administration and with a more Obama friendly Senate.

That suggestion, though, is itself unseemly.

Firat, as the liberal lion gregq said, "If they care about the principles they've fought for, they should retire in time for confirmation battles this year."


It also comes across as intentionally deceitful to treat it as surprising or below board or ugly or anything negative at all, really, because anyone who would weigh in on the issue already knows there is a strong political element to all of these nominations by Presidents of either Party. Indeed, a lot of voters factor in Supreme Court nominations as part of their decisions.

Are Ginsburg and Breyer being selfish? Seemly, to argue that they are.

TMink said...

Yeah, progressives hate democracy. It gets in the way of their plans. Stupid public!

Trey

MadisonMan said...

5 years ago

That long ago? And it's still not fully implemented?

Wow.

Fen said...

I don't know how this will end but Obamacare -

Based on Obama's own precendent, the next POTUS should simply grant a universal waiver for Obamacare.

That's what I want to hear from candidates.

Bruce Hayden said...

We have not seen the Congress work effectively with Harry Reid at the helm of the Senate. If Harry is gone then there is going to be a lot of popular legislation being sent to the President as southcentralpa points out.

Anyone notice this: FBI blocked in corruption probe involving Sens. Reid, Lee? Apparently, the FBI asked for DoJ assistance, having a lot of evidence of misdeeds, and were turned down by the DoJ. Looks a bit like a big payoff to Sen. Reid for protecting Obama from Republican legislation, and forcing Reid out would likely throw the seat to the Republicans. Sen. Lee, on the other hand, is replaceable, though effective as such a junior Senator.

Robert Cook said...

You wrote "Pentagon war machine" like you spitting out rotten fruit and my question, in essence, asked if not a war machine (with all of the war hardware and training, etc), what sort of machine are they supposed to be?"

A tool for self defense, not a war machine, a weapon of aggression and domination...as I said. Don't be obtuse.

Scott M said...

A tool for self defense, not a war machine, a weapon of aggression and domination...as I said. Don't be obtuse.

I'm not. A defensive war is still a war. Thus, even a Pentagon completely dedicated to CONUS-only defence would still be a "war machine". You used the term in a pejorative manner.

Sam L. said...

The HORROR! The horror...

Donald Gooch said...

I don't think Republican control of the Senate is going to hurt Republican presidential aspirations. It certainly didn't hurt the Dems in 2008. Plus, with control of both houses, the Republicans may be able to put Obama in a worse political position through the use of the veto on popular initiatives that Reid hasn't permitted. D.GOOCH