Can anyone explain how Clarence Thomas got confirmed?

[oberliner]

Clarence Thomas is, by far, the most right-wing Supreme Court Justice.

The Democrats had a 57-43 majority in the Senate at the time of his nomination.

Yet, somehow Thomas managed to get in with 11 Democrats voting to confirm.

How was that possible?

[RandySF]

1. We had a lot more red state Democrats back then

And it was a time change. Alan Dixon (D-IL) lost his seat over that vote and it prompted the first big wave of women elected to Congress.

[elleng]

2. Senate confirmation

'In 1991, public opinion polls showed that the vast majority of those polled believed Thomas over Hill.[51] After extensive debate, the Committee sent the nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation either way. Thomas was confirmed by the Senate with a 52 to 48 vote on October 15, 1991,[52] the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century. Vice President Quayle presided over the vote in his role as President of the Senate, partly in case his vote was needed to break a potential 50-50 tie for confirmation.[53] The final floor vote was not strictly along party lines: 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats (Dixon (D-IL), Exon (D-NE), DeConcini (D-AZ), Robb (D-VA), Hollings (D-SC), Fowler (D-GA), Nunn (D-GA), Breaux (D-LA), Johnston (D-LA), Boren (D-OK), and Shelby (D-AL) now (R-AL)) voted to confirm while 46 Democrats and 2 Republicans (Jeffords (R-VT) later (I-VT) and Packwood (R-OR)) voted to reject the nomination; John Glenn was particularly vituperative in his rejection. Ironically Packwood himself would later be engulfed by sexual harassment allegations which ended his Senate career.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination

[pnwmom]

7. And part of that is because Biden and the committee FAILED to call for the testimony

of two women who would have corroborated Anita Hill's story.

[still_one]

26. That is the real story

[jberryhill]

76. More witnesses wouldn't have mattered

It wasn't that Anita Hill wasn't believed. It was that a majority considered her allegations not to be a big deal.

[pnwmom]

82. History has shown that in cases like this corroboration is extremely important. And the two women

had stories that were worse than Anita's.

[jberryhill]

90. Everyone who participated in that vote knew there were two additional witnesses

Neither their existence nor what they were going to testify about were any mystery to anyone in the Senate. Putting them in front of a a microphone in a hearing room would not have changed the prevailing dynamic of these sorts of allegations at that time in history.

[pnwmom]

92. I disagree. I think they didn't want the American people to know, because then there would have been

more pressure on them, especially on the Democrats.

[tonyt53]

101. Bingo!

[oberliner]

16. Wikipedia is the least insightful way to learn

[EX500rider]

87. "Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica"

https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/

[jberryhill]

89. accuracy and insight are two different things

[xajj4791]

97. Actually, it is not.

It is a really good place to go and learn general information with links to the data so you can choose what information you want to delve deeper into. I would say that watching Fox News would be the least insightful way to learn.

Just because Wikipedia got bad press years ago for some dodgy people making edits to their own information or intentionally putting in wrong information does not invalidate the medium. When was the last time you were on Wikipedia and noticed something wrong? It is far more likely you just like to dog on them and act like "someone in the know" or that is hip like it is the greatest thing in the intellectual community.

In reality, Wikipedia is free and did a fantastic job of putting information out there for people to learn about without advertising and without fees. Argue that to all the kids who did not grow up with parents able to afford a copy of Britannica or that did not live close enough to a library to do their research that way.

[bigbrother05]

49. Note that most of the Dems confirming were from the South

Shelby later switched parties and the 2 Dems from GA voted for their local nominee. Southern Dems would have a very hard time getting elected without AA support.

The one that rankles is Boren who would later become the Prez of OU where Ms. Hill taught law at the time of the hearing. To be honest, she was more qualified than Thomas for the court.

[unblock]

3. Even more bizarre, he didn't have the usual judicial experience.

He was mostly an administrator, not a judge. Not the usual background at all. His ones one of the earliest right-wing calculated moves to make the court hyper-partisan. They wanted a staunch right-winger but without a "paper trail" that would complicate senate approval.

A non-judge fit the bill.

Then the accusations of sexual harassment turned the confirmation process into a circus. Bottom line, republicans were able to turn it from "is he qualified" to "if he's not guilty of sexual harassment beyond the shadow of a doubt, you have to confirm him to the he Supreme Court".

Questions of partisanship weren't really asked in those days. It was the waning days of the era when we pretended that justices were chosen based on qualications rather than politics.

[DFW]

4. Times were different then

There was a certain amount of courtesy extended to members of the opposing party, and right-wing extremism on the court hadn't become as rabid as it was. Scalia and Thomas hadn't yet showed their true nature. Things haven't been the same since. Previous attempts to put extremist ideologues (Bork) or obvious incompetents (Carswell) on the court failed. Republican nominees matching those two descriptions today would be championed unanimously, and rubber stamped by the Republicans in the Senate, no matter what lack of qualifications they might have.

[NewJeffCT]

29. yes - agreed

it was definitely a different era.

Plus, I think some Democrats felt guilty over Bork, even though he would have been a partisan hack like Alito if confirmed. (By the way, Bork was a champion of stopping "frivolous" lawsuits. However,several years after being denied his seat, he sued a sidewalk maker when either he or his wife fell on a sidewalk and broke an ankle or something like that, which would likely be something he railed against as frivolous if it happened to anybody else.)

[JI7]

5. different times back then. he should probably be impeached along with Gorsuch and the new guy

since Trump is illegitimate.

[arthritisR_US]

10. Thank you!

[oberliner]

17. The Bork vote happened during the same time period and he was not confirmed

Why were the Democrats able to vote down Bork but not Thomas?

[NewJeffCT]

32. Hard to say exactly

1) Thomas had much less of a paper trail than the stridently partisan Bork.
2) Republicans tried to make Democrats feel guilty about potentially voting against a black nominee.
3) It was a different era when issues of sexual harassment were taken less seriously and it was up to the woman to come forward and prove it had happened.
4) Playing off of #2, Republicans spun the aftermath of the Bork failure as purely partisan, so tried to make Democrats feel guilty about voting against a nominee for purely partisan reasons.

[tomp]

84. there's another reason to impeach gorsuch

He colluded with McConnell's dereliction of the senate's constitutional duty. Anyone accepting a nomination under that condition is unfit to serve.

[pnwmom]

6. When Anita Hill accused him, he portrayed himself as a black man who was being lynched,

the Republicans smeared HER, and the Democrats on the committee, led by Joe Biden, failed to stand up for Anita. Their most egregious decision was for them to fail to call for the testimony of two women, waiting in the wings, who would have corroborated her story. And the reason Biden said they didn't call them was because it would take too much time, and he had promised his Republican counterpart they could wrap it up quickly.

That's how.

[Dave Starsky]

13. Anita Hill, you mean. n/t

[pnwmom]

69. Hah! Yes. n/t

[oberliner]

18. Anita Thomas?

[pnwmom]

70. LOL. I fixed that, thanks. n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

38. Don't forget David Brock's role

He called Hill "a bit nutty and a bit slutty"

[appalachiablue]

64. Thanks for the awful reminder. Brock...

[disillusioned73]

68. Isn't this guy a Dem operative now??

interesting times indeed...

[pnwmom]

71. He was one of the Republican smearers, who will live in infamy. Unfortunately,

it wasn't the Democrats finest hour, because we failed to protect her, or even to present the evidence supporting her.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

93. Yep. Infamy! He was working with Ann Coulter.

Last edited Tue Jul 10, 2018, 05:18 PM - Edit history (1)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

86. I vaguely remember back then too

some magazine (People?) ran a puff piece about Thomas and his wife, Ginni, lamenting how unfairly Thomas was being treated by the whole process.

[bdjhawk]

104. Yes, it was People

Their photo for the story (I don't remember if it was the cover photo or inside with the article but either way it was a large photo) was Thomas and submissive, conflict of interest filled, sleazy Ginni sitting there with a freakin BIBLE playing the fine Christian role to prove to all of the blind righties what fine, fine people they were!!! Yes, it was a very one sided puff piece.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

107. IKR?

It was nauseating. And I remember that picture.

[Raine]

8. Joe Biden

played a big role in it happening.

[Mike Nelson]

9. That was awful...

… Biden's career low... he would be wise to forget about running in 2020 and go out on a career high.

[AlexSFCA]

12. he is too old to run anyway

that career low of his has been extended to present time since thomas is still on the court and it is a constant reminder.

[JHB]

11. Because one side was pushing hard to advance their ideological agenda...

...and the other side thought in terms of norms and civility, and didn't want another fight.

From a Feb. 2014 thread on the subject:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10024571481#post47

The reason Thomas was put on the SC was...

...NOT because he was the most qualified jurist. He wasn't.
...NOT because he was the most qualified black jurist. He wasn't.
...NOT because he was the most qualified black conservative jurist. He wasn't.

He was the most qualified black conservative with reliable but obfuscatable views on abortion & other subjects, and was young enough that he'd stay on the court for decades.

The Democratic senators were initially ready to give him a pass, since 1) they didn't look forward to another SC nomination battle, and 2) initially the black community was receptive to Thomas -- not enthusiastic, but not inclined to oppose -- and a fight against him wouldn't be well received.

At the time I thought Thomas should have been voted down just because of his lackluster record and his ignoring conflicts of interest (Thomas failed to recuse himself in a case involving the Ralston Purina company, where his political mentor Sen. John Danforth owned millions in stock and had brothers on the board of directors. Thomas' decision in favor of Purina directly benefited his pals).

Black opinion didn't shift until later in the process, after Thurgood Marshall made his "a black snake is still a snake" comment. The senators were finally forced to take a harder line when the harassment charges leaked out, and giving Thomas a pass would piss off another Democratic constituency: women fighting workplace harassment.

But all that happened too late: by that point conservatives were ginned up in support and the rest of the establishment didn't want another high-profile fight, so the Thomas hearings were kept to a he-said-she-said with Anita Hill (Angela Wright was shunted off to the side), giving the senators their excuse to just put it behind them.

So here we are, a quarter-century later, and he's still a lackluster jurist who ignores conflicts of interest, and is a reliable conservative operative in the courts.

[oberliner]

20. Thank you for sharing that

Sill it seems surprising that so many Democrats voted to confirm him when they were able to block Bork just a few years prior.

[JHB]

47. Bork was the face of the Saturday Night Massacre...

...the guy who stepped up to the plate and carried out Nixon's order to fire the independent special prosecutor for the Watergate scandal when two of his superiors refused and resigned.

The mere fact that Reagan had nominated him was an ideological move. The fight to block him got pretty nasty, and thereafter centrist Dems tended to shy away from possible knock-down-drag-out fights.

Thomas didn't have anything like Bork's high profile, and as I noted, initially it looked like opposing him would tick off black voters, until Thurgood Marshall signaled that Thomas was not a friend. Among the Democratic senators, opposition to Thomas was disorganized, uncertain, late to congeal against conservatives signalling total war if another SC pick was blocked, and they mostly wanted to put an uncomfortable situation behind them. So they did.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

14. Because white men didn't want to be seen believing a black woman.

[oberliner]

21. Why not vote against him on ideological grounds?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

34. It's almost as if misogynoir is a thing.

[oberliner]

40. Clarence Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall

I don't see why Democrats couldn't have stood firm against confirming such a far-right wing nominee to replace a justice who was anything but that. This is irrespective of the Anita Hill component.

[bigbrother05]

46. That was a huge factor in his nomination, IMO

Regardless of the weakness of his credentials, he played to a quota mentality. Ms. Hill was quite compelling, but withholding corroborating witnesses doomed it to a he said/she said coin toss. His remark about a "high tech lynching" was his one bright moment and obviously gave Dems problems with a frontal attack.

After the pubes on the Coke can and Long Dong Silver testimony, Biden was reluctant to take the Senate committee any further down that sewer drain. In today's climate, that now seems quaint, but our media world was really quite different then.

It's always been quite ironic that the one person that clearly benefited from affirmative action is its greatest opponent. Self loathing much?

[spooky3]

53. The "high tech lynching" comment made no sense,

because Hill also was a person of color. But the white males on the panel who were misogynists were happy to gloss over that.

[bigbrother05]

58. He was referring to the Committee members

In his version, Ms. Hill was brought in just to smear him. For him it was his strongest argument to avoid a real hearing.

[spooky3]

60. I know he was, but think about it...

He was upset that he was being accused of wrongdoing that might keep him off the SC. If they had instead treated her testimony with respect, and listened to other witnesses who would testify to similar acts, then that is a just process, the farthest thing from a “lynching.” She was clearly not motivated by racism to make up stories. But by playing “the race card” he was able to scare enough panelists into being afraid of being perceived as racists if they refused to support him.

If anyone were “lynched”, it was Hill.

[bigbrother05]

65. Agree, she was the injured party, the attacks were brutal

All the usual claims to try to blame her and ignore his actions. Asking why she just didn't quit or bring action at the time. She suffered through all the typical shaming associated with similar claims at the time.

It was victim shaming, pure and simple, but Thomas got his lasting plum position.

[spooky3]

67. And got to damage millions of Americans over the years

With his co-conspirators, Scalia et al.

[Yupster]

48. Back then ideological grounds was not considered a reason to reject a nominee

The thought was that the president was entitled to name someone of his philosophy. The argument was over competence and "judicial temperament"

For example, The Notorious RBG was well qualified for the job, was well known ideologically as a respected and leading voice of liberal jurist-prudence. Yet she was confirmed by a vote of 96-3.

You can see the change in Elena Kagan's confirmation vote. She was confirmed, but only by a 63-37 vote though today that would be seen as a landslide. In the critics defense, she had never served as a judge at any level though her resume in academia and politics was certainly impressive.

Today, the confirmation process is expected to be completely partisan. with Gorsuch being confirmed with just three Democratic votes and Alito before him getting just four Democratic votes.

The times have really changed.

[treestar]

99. While Republicans of today might do that

back then, they respected the POTUS choice so long as they were qualified. The law is not supposed to reflect an ideology.

[Orsino]

15. 52-48.

Eleven Dems voted yes, and two Republicans actually voted against him, making Thomas' confirmation officially bipartisan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination

[oberliner]

22. Looking it up on Wikipedia is not particularly useful

I was hoping for more insights from people who remember that time period well.

[Orsino]

25. If you're asking why eleven Dems would vote yes...

...it's because, for whatever reason, they didn't choose to believe Anita Hill. Or didn't consider her story important.

[Kingofalldems]

28. I don't believe that for a second.

[LanternWaste]

59. Less useful than asking for objective information on DU?

Or simply an excuse?


I'm guessing number two.

[Kingofalldems]

81. Exactly. Can't fool everyone.

[Baitball Blogger]

19. You're not going to like the answer.

Biden had a big part in closing down the process that would have revealed that Anita Hill was not the only woman that Thomas had harassed.

[oberliner]

23. Biden voted against his confirmation

I don't see why the rest of the Democrats could not have followed suit as they did against Bork a few years prior.

[Baitball Blogger]

24. This was a huge problem back then. Worse than now. We had go-along Democrats

or a strong coalition of Centrists who would vote rightward. Find out who they were and look at the states they represented. If they were in red states, they would have protected their jobs.

Blue dogs?

[oberliner]

27. Interestingly (and disturbingly) Murkowski was a YES vote as well

[TexasTowelie]

35. That was Lisa's father, Frank.

He was also a senator.

[oberliner]

39. Yep

Do you think his daughter will vote against Kavanaugh?

[Orsino]

30. If it's important to be fair...

...these were the days before so many lower courts had also been packed, before we thought that so many cases with such terrible impact would ever make it as far as the Supreme Court.

The Senate was mostly coasting, I guess.

[Baitball Blogger]

31. So, we were a party with no vision.

Got it.

[Orsino]

33. Or the Senate was still a "deliberative body"...

...and not yet just a rubber stamp for corporatism.

[pnwmom]

73. But he STOPPED the two women from corroborating Anita's story.

And he knew more than the Democrats who only saw a single black woman testify against an outraged black man, who was claiming he'd been set up.

[Hoyt]

36. "Polls showed that twice as many Americans supported as opposed Judge Thomas" is one reason. More

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/16/us/thomas-confirmation-senate-confirms-thomas-52-48-ending-week-bitter-battle-time.html



My own opinion is that when you or others vote for Prez, you/they are voting for the Prez's Supreme Court nominations except in extreme cases (where the Senate is supposed to intervene). Thomas was not a good nomination/choice for us, but I'm not sure that's the test.

[oberliner]

42. In 1987, the Democrats were able to block Bork from being confirmed

This was only four years after that - and, in this case, it was a far RW nominee replacing Thurgood Marshall.

[pnwmom]

74. Bork wasn't the first black man who would ever have been appointed.

I think the Democrats decided, in light of history, and all the false claims that had been made against black men in the past, to error in his favor.

[WhiteTara]

37. This was right after Bork and EOE was big

he was the first (in modern era) black nominee and after the Bork debacle, the Dems caved because the fight of Bork was so huge.

[Blue_Tires]

41. Because Anita Hill wasn't white...

[Mosby]

43. I think the anita hill thing acted as a diversion

From the real issues at hand. He was questioned a little about legal topics, though as an administrative law judge he could honestly say he had no opinion.

The Anita hill accusations completely changed the dynamic of the hearings, allowing Thomas to basically to fly under the radar and not be held to the usual standards.

Eta I'm not blaming Anita hill, I believed her then and I believe her now.

[oberliner]

45. Interesting insights

Still seems surprising to me for these reasons:

1. He was replacing Thurgood Marshall (the polar opposite of Thomas)

2. Democrats had a significant majority in the Senate (and had 2 Republicans voting against confirmation)

3. They were able to block Bork successfully a few years prior (resulting in a relatively more moderate pick)

[exboyfil]

52. Some of the stuff done with Bork was unseemly

Politicizing the video rentals comes to mind. He should have been rejected out of hand for his role in the Saturday Night Massacre. Not sure how the Democrats got on the wrong side of the issue.

[Greybnk48]

44. Even after we found out his porn nickname is "Long Dong Silver"

right on national television. No one could understand his CONfirmation given that there were many other young talented black men were out there to choose from if it was a diversity thing.

[MicaelS]

50. Because the Republicans played it beautifully.

Thomas was a Black Conservative and thus a two-fer. There were damn few Black Conservative jurists at that time.

If all Democrats had opposed him the Republicans would have been able to point and say "See, you are prejudiced against a Black man who isn't a Liberal."

And yes, many did not believe Hill.

I was alive then and watched the whole spectacle.

[saidsimplesimon]

54. The race issue was a canard. imo

Anita Hill is a person of color and a woman. The boys in charge decided they believed a man, regardless of color, more than a fine example of a human being and professional as is Professor Hill.

I will never forget nor forgive this injustice and the consequences.

[spooky3]

56. Agree nt

[MicaelS]

66. Of course they believed a man over a woman.

That was the way things were.

[kimbutgar]

51. Because he was black and the Democrats did not want a white man to replace the great Thurgood

Marshall. I remember being disgusted he was picked because of that reason. And I had a t shirt saying, I believe Anita.

[spooky3]

55. Coupled with the panel's refusal to take sex discrimination

Seriously.

[dogknob]

57. It was a simpler time. Ahhh! n/t

[leftyladyfrommo]

61. I watched a lot of the hearings on Thomas and Hill.

I never could understand how that awful man made it on to the court. It made me sick. I think all that mattered was that he was a he and he was black. He was also a pig.

A lot of people believed Hill's testimony. I certainly did. But I don't think how women felt about the situation mattered much.

[greatauntoftriplets]

62. Beats the shit out of me.

[vsrazdem]

63. Ask Joe Biden.

[Vinca]

72. For starters, no one believed Anita Hill. But he shouldn't have been confirmed.

Not only is he on the fringe right, he doesn't seem all that bright - never asks questions, never seems particularly interested in what's going on. The only thing worse than Clarence is his pain in the ass wife.

[pnwmom]

75. No one? Every woman I know believed her. But there wasn't a single woman on the panel. nt

[Vinca]

77. That's what I meant. If you weren't on the panel it didn't matter much, did it?

[DeminPennswoods]

78. Sexual harassment wasn't taken nearly as seriously as now

If Thomas was nominated today and Anita Hill came forward, his name would be withdrawn.

[spooky3]

98. Are you kidding? We have a sexual harasser as President.

It doesn’t seem to disqualify people for jobs as automatically as you suggest.

[DeminPennswoods]

100. Irrelevent, he'd be foreced to withdraw

in today's society.

[spooky3]

102. No. Nt

[no_hypocrisy]

79. He wouldn't have except for

1) Joe Biden weakened Anita Hill's testimony and

2) Thomas played the race card. He called the hearings a "high tech lynching". Now even wavering Democrats felt like they were prejudiced if they DIDN'T vote for his confirmation.


Thomas never should have been seated on the Court. And what made the entire incident infuriating was he was taking Thurgood Marshall's seat, which disgraced his service and his memory.

[gibraltar72]

80. We didn't fight as hard as we could have. I think Uncle Joe has some responsibility for that.

I remember another woman was waiting to testify and she was never called.

[heaven05]

83. Bush I

nominated this POS as a direct insult to AA voters. This Supremacist Court Justice replaced Thurgood Marshall. I was pissed at the insult and lack of respect shown to a great Supreme Court Justice. Herbert Bush slapped AA. I bet that fucker laughed his ass off. Clarence Thomas!!!!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

85. I'm sure you were around then. Tell us your recollection. nt

[sarcasmo]

88. Long Dong Silver.

[lunatica]

91. Being a misogynist was perfectly acceptable in those days

I am saying the absolute literal truth. Anita Hill was the one dragged through the fire pit, not Clarence Thomas.

Even a bunch of his office staff who were women AND Black stood behind him. You can see them in footage of the hearing. Anita had no one in her corner. Even Joe Biden was an asshole back then.

[Tatiana]

94. He was confirmed, in part, because of Southern Democrats.

Georgia Dems, Louisiana Dems, the Virginia Dem, the South Carolina Dem, the Oklahoma Dem, the Alabama Dem (now an Alabama Republican - Richard Shelby)...

Conservative Democrats have tended to approve right-wing judges and this is a problem we have been dealing with for a long time.

[EffieBlack]

105. It went pretty much like this

White Southern Senator: I can't vote against a black nominee because black people will be upset.

Black People: No. We won't be upset. He's terrible. Please vote no.

White Southern Senator: I can't vote no. It's wrong to vote against a black nominee.

Black People: No, it's not wrong. Please vote no.

White Southern Senator: If I vote against this black nominee, black people will accuse me of being a racist.

Black People: No we won't. We can't stand Clarence Thomas. He's unqualified AND he will undermine everything Thurgood Marshall stood for. Please vote no.

White Southern Senator: I'd better vote yes so that black people will see that I support them.

Black People: No, dude. If you want to support us, please vote no.

White Southern Senator: I'd better vote for this guy.

Black People:

[Tatiana]

106. Well you knew it was over when he dropped the "high tech lynching" phrase.

Which I don't even think Thomas came up with himself.

George Mitchell dropped the ball in not holding enough of the Democratic caucus together. Shelby was a lost cause, but some of the others could have been persuaded.

His coworkers didn't call him "Uncle Thomas" for nothing. I personally think he is a mentally unstable, self-hating misogynist.

[SummerSnow]

95. Misogyny is what got him confirmed.

[xajj4791]

96. You guys are rediculous!

"sexual harassment was not taken as seriously then" -- Like it is today with PoTuS "grabbing pu$$ies" or waking in on contestants "because when your famous and in charge you can do anything"? Or was that sarcasm and I am missing something?

For those of you who keep asking the same question over and over and over again like you cannot read or something...."What I don't understand is if they voted no on Bork, and had majority in Senate, why didn't the Democrats vote no?", this has been answered many times. The democrats could not find sufficient grounds to say no as they did not consider sexual harassment as a dis-qualifier.

Donnelly (D-IN), Heitkamp (D-ND), Manchin (D-WV) all voted to confirm Neil M. Gorsuch, of Colorado, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. If he can get 3 Democrats, why would it surprise you that Thomas got 11? He was a black man with far right ideals, a poster boy for the far right who had nothing specific that the Democrats could point to and say "Ah-HA! He cannot be a Supreme Court Justice because ........".

[demosincebirth]

103. Weak kneed democrats