The world has evolved so much since the founders of this country wrote the documents that we still hold as our foundation.
1) People live significantly longer now than they did in the early 19th century, lifetime appointments now mean an extra couple of decades that they wouldn’t have had back then.
2) The electoral college (the original DEI in this country!) has worked against the popular vote in too many elections, and keeps our country in a two party system.
3) The 2nd Amendment was written when the arms we were granted were things like bayonnettes and pistols that couldn’t do the damage that todays weapons can.
4) Women and minorities couldn’t even vote, nor were they given any voice in framing the constitution.
What people need to realize is that our constitution and the amendments and laws can, and SHOULD, evolve as our contry does.
1) SCOTUS term limits should exist now, as well as for members of congress. We enacted it for POTUS, so it’s not a radical idea to enact it for other branches of our government.
2) The electoral college should either be eliminated OR at the very least, distribute votes as they do in Nebraska. It shouldn't be a winner take all system, it makes people think their vote doesn’t matter.
3) The 2nd amendment can still be in place, but it should be amended to reflect that the arms available to people now can mow down multiple people in a matter of seconds. Remember when we repealed prohibition? Again, not radical to say ‘oops, we need to fix this’.
4) Now that ALL citizens have a voice, the revisions mentioned above would reflect the will of the PEOPLE, not just the white men.
Thank you for teaching people using history and facts and making it easier for people to understand how our government works and for letting people know how we have the ability to use our voice - and we SHOULD! There is so much misinformation and distrust out there.
I wholeheartedly agree with the majority of your points. Especially with regard to term limits for SCOTUS, and "modification(s)" to the Electoral College. I do (in my opinion...which admittedly is not shared by a majority of my contemporaries) disagree with term limits for Congressional representatives; and, I'm not convinced that the 2nd Amendment needs to be *amended.*
Regarding term limits for Congress: In essence, we already have this. It's the ballot box. And yes--I accept the argument that incumbency carries a lot of weight in a congressional campaign. But, if the incumbent is not serving their constituents to their liking--they have the opportunity to vote them out. I would also point out that most people who support congressional term limits will often bolster their argument by citing a representative from a state/district other than their own. Years ago, Texans would bring up congressional term limits, and use Teddy Kennedy (MA) as an example. But, folks in Massachusetts seemed to love Teddy. Should Texans then (indirectly) get to decide who *shouldn't* be allowed to represent Massachusetts in the Senate?
As for 'replacing' the 2nd Amendment: This purports that the 2nd Amendment--in its current form/verbiage is inadequate or outdated. I would contend that it has simply been mis-interpreted by politicians--and that interpretation has been adopted and reinforced by a corrupted SCOTUS. And...this misinterpretation is only possible when the first part of the 2nd Amendment is theoretically omitted: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." This opening statement fully supports the notion that the "right to bear arms" is NOT unfettered--as the NRA has unfortunately argued, and persuaded legislators around the nation. A SCOTUS that is true to Constitutional principles and the founders' intent is all we need to shore up gun laws.
I do appreciate your perspective on government term limits and the 2nd amendment.
Regarding the 2nd amendment, I totally agree that it seems SCOTUS is misinterpreting the law. However, in that case, I do believe it is Congress's responsibility to clarify the law, which I think would require a new constitutional amendment. History has shown that the 2nd amendment is ambiguous enough that SCOTUS Justice's (and the public) have been able to interpret it in vastly different ways and so new language should be introduced such that Justice's no longer have to debate the intention of the law.
Regarding term limits, I am inclined to agree that for positions that represent a smaller electorate, that have more limited powers, and have frequent elections we probably don't need term limits. As you say, the ballot becomes the limit to terms for such representation. For example, I don't think US House representatives need term limits. House officials represent a single district (of similar population sizes), they are re-elected every 2 years, and they are 1 of 435 votes in their branch of Congress. Their powers are limited on an individual level and they have similar share of representation to their peers.
However, I do wonder if Senators should have term limits. Senators represent an entire state (of vastly differing population sizes), they are elected every 6 years, and are just 1 of 100 in their branch of Congress. As we have seen, a SINGLE Senator who is viewed as the "swing vote" can have basically the sole power of government. Nothing can pass through Congress without that Senator, so nothing gets to the President without that Senator. And Senators to not represent a consistent share of population, so depending on who that swing vote is they may have even more outsized power relative to their representation. I would be inclined to apply the same term limits to Senators as we do the President: 2 terms or 15 years. This would allow every Senator to take over a vacated seat for up to 3 years and still hold the elected position for up to 2 terms.
Just popping in your thread to say that it’s very refreshing seeing a civil discussion, where you each are taking your very valid points into consideration.
I love this. I spent 11+ years working in court administration at the lower court level and have always felt it ludicrous that the lower court judicial officers have to report any gift with a value more than $49 and adhere to a substantial code of ethics and they are hearing, in some cases, traffic tickets.
I absolutely support term limits and I think the points others have made in this thread (especially the longer lifespan that modern day Americans have) support such a measure.
But I also think that we need to start some of this reform at a lower level. Many of our Supreme Court Justices (past and present) have been Federal Judges who have have worked their way up the court levels until they have sufficient reputation and experience to gain the higher appointments. They often start their careers in seats elected by their communities. I would ask the majority of governerds how they choose their local judges...most people I talk to just pick a name because so little information is provided. Part of this is because the bench is supposed to be apolitical but we see via the Supreme Court that is an impossibility. As a result, I've seen very conservative judges elected and reelected in very liberal communities and vice versa. These judges then work their way up and make huge impacts on their communities when it's likely constituents wouldn't have elected them if they had understood their political bent and the resulting impact. So my other proposal is that for transparency, during judicial elections at ALL levels, candidates should have to declare any party previously registered with OR their stance on a set of issues that would allow the public to make educated decisions on their judicial ballot. The local judges become the state judges who become federal judges and it all funnels up. We should be able to make an informed choice about who we are dropping in that funnel.
I love being a Colorado voter for this reason. There is a blue booklet sent out to all voters before the election with each item explained and a pro/anti stance on it. For judges it talks about their ratings and education, any disciplinary measures, and whether attorneys find them easy to work with/fair, etc. If more states provided this that would be great. Even better if more voters spent time researching.
I often have found it difficult to vote for judges because there is often so little information provided.
What are the differences between judges? Unless I know how they have ruled previously in various types of cases, or unless they have shared how they would approach the bench, how can any of us make an informed selection?
I'm not sure if party matters so much as how they personally interpret law and their responsibility to the bench. But I agree, any more information would be better than NONE. 👏
Party just helps indicate how they may rule on issues if they have never been appointed to the bench before. It can be hard to know how say a former prosecutor would be as a civil judge but often party affiliation can help with that. Democrat leaning judges tend to rule more.frequently against big business. Conversely on the criminal side, Republican leaning judges tend to rule against social justice defenses.
Love the idea of term limits, 18 yrs, one justice rotated out every two years. Sounds good. 👍
However, until the electoral college is abolished, I still worry about the Executive Office having the sole responsibility of selection. Arguably, if the President is not selected by the popular vote, then the President's selection for SCOTUS Justice is unlikely to match the will of the people. So it seems like this reform needs to ultimately be coupled with other reforms.
Secondly, SCOTUS absolutely needs enforceable ethics rules. Anything we currently apply to lower court judges should be applied and enforceable to SCOTUS Justices. I like the idea of an independent committee. Arguably this responsibility should not lie with Congress, because technically they already have the power to regulate SCOTUS and they are not doing it. It's the public's opinion of the court that matters, so I'm inclined to think this oversight should be handled by some sort of citizens committee, but I am open to ideas.
Thirdly, we need some sort of process for judges being recused from cases. It seems that this decision should not rest with the individual judge themselves. As we have seen, some judges are very good at being responsible and recuse themselves, others are not. There needs to be a better process where Justice's are disqualified from cases due to conflict of interest. Not sure if that's just having clear rules, or an outside committee, or the Justice's raising red flags on each other, but it's gotta be better than the current process of policing one's self.
Yes, I think the US Supreme Court needs a code of ethics with teeth, like federal employees and every attorney and judge elsewhere. I also agree with term limits.
For background, I have a law degree, though I've never practiced law. And over the last few years, I've wondered, "How are constitutional law professors teaching right now? How are law students learning constitutional law?" It must feel like whiplash. Ditto for the admin law professors.
Preach, Sister! Thank you for writing on this important subject. Now that you have educated us, please provide action items we can take to make these excellent suggestions a reality.
Yes! Action items! We talked about this at the beginning of this season of the book club (or last?), and Sharon spoke to having actionable items that we could do to make an impact. 🌟🤙🏼
One "solution" that was not mentioned is *packing* the court. It has been argued that Biden (in his lame duck status, and with a favorable Senate) should nominate three liberal judges to be placed on the court. I would argue that--fortunately--Biden has not seriously entertained this proposal. 1) It would only further entrench the divide we have experienced in the American politic, and 2) It would likely foster a new 'tradition' with each succeeding president. Change parties at the executive branch? Change SCOTUS to match.
Article III, Section 1 of the constitution gives congress the authority to change the size of the Supreme Court. A president cannot just “expand/pack the court”. The president can nominate, the Senate confirm, but all of this is within the confines of the current number of Supreme Court Justices.
At least this is what Sharon has been saying- am I getting this wrong?
I spent my entire career working in the defense industry on government contracts. We had rules that we could not accept even zero, a $5 or sometimes a little more gift from a supplier. Basically we could only accept a pen or a calendar. The number changed a little over time but not much. All our working lunches with DoD had a kitty basket so everyone paid their own way. My only free lunch was if my company was paying, I could be placed on a list to validate i was a current employee. I retired fairly high up in the company and survived 40 years of working under rules like these. No reasons SC judges can't at least declare all gifts and maybe, just maybe, refuse them.
I don’t have an answer, but I do wonder if there is a way to address the way things can go back and forth depending upon the court’s makeup. At some point it seems there needs to be a final decision on the interpretation of the constitution or the freedoms/limitations we have will change every few years. It’s an insane way to live.
That’s a good point, but what about the idea of a living constitution? That no word can be “final” because what made sense in 1823 doesn’t make sense any more?
“tending to prostitute the high judicial character with which he was invested..." Love that and will be using it often 😜.
These days I am constantly amazed and yes ..still surprised, at how a lack of integrity in our elected officials and their appointees seems to be accepted, excused, or brushed aside. It bothers me. A lot. I feel a shift coming though, and know a lot of that is from Sharon and those like her who educate, expose, and call it out.❤️
Given the current lifetime appointments, and the fact the court is supposed to make decisions with zero regard or consideration of public opinion, why do they even poll on public opinion of the Supreme Court? It seems that by polling, we are in part, asking for them to consider public opinion. I would propose adding a requirement that polling on the court be eliminated as part of the reforms.
I wonder if Jefferson had brought these misuses of the law by Chase, to someone’s attention BEFORE Jefferson was irked about support for Adams, that they would have been more likely to find him guilty and remove him as a judge. Waiting until after the election did make Jefferson look petty and more politically motivated than if these issue were addressed WHEN they first happened.
I keep hearing the criticism that the current Supreme Court is out of step it’s the populace, or that they’re interpreting the laws or Constitution in a way that the majority of Americans disagree with. But I learned in law school that the Supreme Court is *designed* to be a counter-majoritarian branch within the government. They’re intended to write Brown v Board of Education when many people *want* segregated schools. They’re intended to interpret what rights are, even for those who most wouldn’t choose to protect. The Supreme Court protects against the tyranny of the majority. I’m still turning over what this means given the new conservative majority- they’re protecting the rights of the (minority?) of people who are anti-abortion or of fetuses? I also want to point out that the Supreme Court was also very out of step during the 1930s, the last time “packing the court” became a popular refrain. And that the Supreme Court has been very liberal in the recent past, and that pendulum eventually has to swing the other way.
I’ll ask the contrarian question. What’s the best argument AGAINST term limits for SCOTUS? Surely this was discussed around the time of the founding and I’m curious how well those arguments hold up today.
The world has evolved so much since the founders of this country wrote the documents that we still hold as our foundation.
1) People live significantly longer now than they did in the early 19th century, lifetime appointments now mean an extra couple of decades that they wouldn’t have had back then.
2) The electoral college (the original DEI in this country!) has worked against the popular vote in too many elections, and keeps our country in a two party system.
3) The 2nd Amendment was written when the arms we were granted were things like bayonnettes and pistols that couldn’t do the damage that todays weapons can.
4) Women and minorities couldn’t even vote, nor were they given any voice in framing the constitution.
What people need to realize is that our constitution and the amendments and laws can, and SHOULD, evolve as our contry does.
1) SCOTUS term limits should exist now, as well as for members of congress. We enacted it for POTUS, so it’s not a radical idea to enact it for other branches of our government.
2) The electoral college should either be eliminated OR at the very least, distribute votes as they do in Nebraska. It shouldn't be a winner take all system, it makes people think their vote doesn’t matter.
3) The 2nd amendment can still be in place, but it should be amended to reflect that the arms available to people now can mow down multiple people in a matter of seconds. Remember when we repealed prohibition? Again, not radical to say ‘oops, we need to fix this’.
4) Now that ALL citizens have a voice, the revisions mentioned above would reflect the will of the PEOPLE, not just the white men.
Thank you for teaching people using history and facts and making it easier for people to understand how our government works and for letting people know how we have the ability to use our voice - and we SHOULD! There is so much misinformation and distrust out there.
I wholeheartedly agree with the majority of your points. Especially with regard to term limits for SCOTUS, and "modification(s)" to the Electoral College. I do (in my opinion...which admittedly is not shared by a majority of my contemporaries) disagree with term limits for Congressional representatives; and, I'm not convinced that the 2nd Amendment needs to be *amended.*
Regarding term limits for Congress: In essence, we already have this. It's the ballot box. And yes--I accept the argument that incumbency carries a lot of weight in a congressional campaign. But, if the incumbent is not serving their constituents to their liking--they have the opportunity to vote them out. I would also point out that most people who support congressional term limits will often bolster their argument by citing a representative from a state/district other than their own. Years ago, Texans would bring up congressional term limits, and use Teddy Kennedy (MA) as an example. But, folks in Massachusetts seemed to love Teddy. Should Texans then (indirectly) get to decide who *shouldn't* be allowed to represent Massachusetts in the Senate?
As for 'replacing' the 2nd Amendment: This purports that the 2nd Amendment--in its current form/verbiage is inadequate or outdated. I would contend that it has simply been mis-interpreted by politicians--and that interpretation has been adopted and reinforced by a corrupted SCOTUS. And...this misinterpretation is only possible when the first part of the 2nd Amendment is theoretically omitted: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." This opening statement fully supports the notion that the "right to bear arms" is NOT unfettered--as the NRA has unfortunately argued, and persuaded legislators around the nation. A SCOTUS that is true to Constitutional principles and the founders' intent is all we need to shore up gun laws.
Thanks for allowing the rant.
I do appreciate your perspective on government term limits and the 2nd amendment.
Regarding the 2nd amendment, I totally agree that it seems SCOTUS is misinterpreting the law. However, in that case, I do believe it is Congress's responsibility to clarify the law, which I think would require a new constitutional amendment. History has shown that the 2nd amendment is ambiguous enough that SCOTUS Justice's (and the public) have been able to interpret it in vastly different ways and so new language should be introduced such that Justice's no longer have to debate the intention of the law.
Regarding term limits, I am inclined to agree that for positions that represent a smaller electorate, that have more limited powers, and have frequent elections we probably don't need term limits. As you say, the ballot becomes the limit to terms for such representation. For example, I don't think US House representatives need term limits. House officials represent a single district (of similar population sizes), they are re-elected every 2 years, and they are 1 of 435 votes in their branch of Congress. Their powers are limited on an individual level and they have similar share of representation to their peers.
However, I do wonder if Senators should have term limits. Senators represent an entire state (of vastly differing population sizes), they are elected every 6 years, and are just 1 of 100 in their branch of Congress. As we have seen, a SINGLE Senator who is viewed as the "swing vote" can have basically the sole power of government. Nothing can pass through Congress without that Senator, so nothing gets to the President without that Senator. And Senators to not represent a consistent share of population, so depending on who that swing vote is they may have even more outsized power relative to their representation. I would be inclined to apply the same term limits to Senators as we do the President: 2 terms or 15 years. This would allow every Senator to take over a vacated seat for up to 3 years and still hold the elected position for up to 2 terms.
Just popping in your thread to say that it’s very refreshing seeing a civil discussion, where you each are taking your very valid points into consideration.
Honestly, I love this community Sharon built for that very reason ❤️ I feel safe to learn, share, and be curious with others.
You make a very good point regarding the Senate. I'll have to give this some thought.🤔
Marea, you stated ALL of the above perfectly. I personally agree with it all. Thank you for sharing your views.
That last line, tho… 🎯🙌🏼
I love this. I spent 11+ years working in court administration at the lower court level and have always felt it ludicrous that the lower court judicial officers have to report any gift with a value more than $49 and adhere to a substantial code of ethics and they are hearing, in some cases, traffic tickets.
I absolutely support term limits and I think the points others have made in this thread (especially the longer lifespan that modern day Americans have) support such a measure.
But I also think that we need to start some of this reform at a lower level. Many of our Supreme Court Justices (past and present) have been Federal Judges who have have worked their way up the court levels until they have sufficient reputation and experience to gain the higher appointments. They often start their careers in seats elected by their communities. I would ask the majority of governerds how they choose their local judges...most people I talk to just pick a name because so little information is provided. Part of this is because the bench is supposed to be apolitical but we see via the Supreme Court that is an impossibility. As a result, I've seen very conservative judges elected and reelected in very liberal communities and vice versa. These judges then work their way up and make huge impacts on their communities when it's likely constituents wouldn't have elected them if they had understood their political bent and the resulting impact. So my other proposal is that for transparency, during judicial elections at ALL levels, candidates should have to declare any party previously registered with OR their stance on a set of issues that would allow the public to make educated decisions on their judicial ballot. The local judges become the state judges who become federal judges and it all funnels up. We should be able to make an informed choice about who we are dropping in that funnel.
I love being a Colorado voter for this reason. There is a blue booklet sent out to all voters before the election with each item explained and a pro/anti stance on it. For judges it talks about their ratings and education, any disciplinary measures, and whether attorneys find them easy to work with/fair, etc. If more states provided this that would be great. Even better if more voters spent time researching.
Could not agree more!
I often have found it difficult to vote for judges because there is often so little information provided.
What are the differences between judges? Unless I know how they have ruled previously in various types of cases, or unless they have shared how they would approach the bench, how can any of us make an informed selection?
I'm not sure if party matters so much as how they personally interpret law and their responsibility to the bench. But I agree, any more information would be better than NONE. 👏
Party just helps indicate how they may rule on issues if they have never been appointed to the bench before. It can be hard to know how say a former prosecutor would be as a civil judge but often party affiliation can help with that. Democrat leaning judges tend to rule more.frequently against big business. Conversely on the criminal side, Republican leaning judges tend to rule against social justice defenses.
I don't love generalizing candidates based on their party, but any info/signal is better than nothing 👍
This is an excellent point.
I love the idea of term limits in all of government.
Semi-related: I just realized that when I read a quote by Thomas Jefferson, I hear it in Daveed Diggs' voice. 🤣
Love the idea of term limits, 18 yrs, one justice rotated out every two years. Sounds good. 👍
However, until the electoral college is abolished, I still worry about the Executive Office having the sole responsibility of selection. Arguably, if the President is not selected by the popular vote, then the President's selection for SCOTUS Justice is unlikely to match the will of the people. So it seems like this reform needs to ultimately be coupled with other reforms.
Secondly, SCOTUS absolutely needs enforceable ethics rules. Anything we currently apply to lower court judges should be applied and enforceable to SCOTUS Justices. I like the idea of an independent committee. Arguably this responsibility should not lie with Congress, because technically they already have the power to regulate SCOTUS and they are not doing it. It's the public's opinion of the court that matters, so I'm inclined to think this oversight should be handled by some sort of citizens committee, but I am open to ideas.
Thirdly, we need some sort of process for judges being recused from cases. It seems that this decision should not rest with the individual judge themselves. As we have seen, some judges are very good at being responsible and recuse themselves, others are not. There needs to be a better process where Justice's are disqualified from cases due to conflict of interest. Not sure if that's just having clear rules, or an outside committee, or the Justice's raising red flags on each other, but it's gotta be better than the current process of policing one's self.
Yes, I think the US Supreme Court needs a code of ethics with teeth, like federal employees and every attorney and judge elsewhere. I also agree with term limits.
For background, I have a law degree, though I've never practiced law. And over the last few years, I've wondered, "How are constitutional law professors teaching right now? How are law students learning constitutional law?" It must feel like whiplash. Ditto for the admin law professors.
Preach, Sister! Thank you for writing on this important subject. Now that you have educated us, please provide action items we can take to make these excellent suggestions a reality.
Yes! Action items! We talked about this at the beginning of this season of the book club (or last?), and Sharon spoke to having actionable items that we could do to make an impact. 🌟🤙🏼
One "solution" that was not mentioned is *packing* the court. It has been argued that Biden (in his lame duck status, and with a favorable Senate) should nominate three liberal judges to be placed on the court. I would argue that--fortunately--Biden has not seriously entertained this proposal. 1) It would only further entrench the divide we have experienced in the American politic, and 2) It would likely foster a new 'tradition' with each succeeding president. Change parties at the executive branch? Change SCOTUS to match.
I was under the impression that Biden cannot change the number of SCOTUS without congress? 🤔
The president appoints/nominates, and those nominated are approved (or not) by the Senate. The House is not involved.
Article III, Section 1 of the constitution gives congress the authority to change the size of the Supreme Court. A president cannot just “expand/pack the court”. The president can nominate, the Senate confirm, but all of this is within the confines of the current number of Supreme Court Justices.
At least this is what Sharon has been saying- am I getting this wrong?
I stand corrected.
I spent my entire career working in the defense industry on government contracts. We had rules that we could not accept even zero, a $5 or sometimes a little more gift from a supplier. Basically we could only accept a pen or a calendar. The number changed a little over time but not much. All our working lunches with DoD had a kitty basket so everyone paid their own way. My only free lunch was if my company was paying, I could be placed on a list to validate i was a current employee. I retired fairly high up in the company and survived 40 years of working under rules like these. No reasons SC judges can't at least declare all gifts and maybe, just maybe, refuse them.
I'm not saying fraud and kickbacks didn't happen, but it was very obviously wrong and illegal with huge penalties.
I don’t have an answer, but I do wonder if there is a way to address the way things can go back and forth depending upon the court’s makeup. At some point it seems there needs to be a final decision on the interpretation of the constitution or the freedoms/limitations we have will change every few years. It’s an insane way to live.
That’s a good point, but what about the idea of a living constitution? That no word can be “final” because what made sense in 1823 doesn’t make sense any more?
I especially like the 18 year limit on Judges and every President appoints every two years. That would make a huge difference
“tending to prostitute the high judicial character with which he was invested..." Love that and will be using it often 😜.
These days I am constantly amazed and yes ..still surprised, at how a lack of integrity in our elected officials and their appointees seems to be accepted, excused, or brushed aside. It bothers me. A lot. I feel a shift coming though, and know a lot of that is from Sharon and those like her who educate, expose, and call it out.❤️
Love this, Sara! I’ve been thinking the SAME!
Given the current lifetime appointments, and the fact the court is supposed to make decisions with zero regard or consideration of public opinion, why do they even poll on public opinion of the Supreme Court? It seems that by polling, we are in part, asking for them to consider public opinion. I would propose adding a requirement that polling on the court be eliminated as part of the reforms.
I wonder if Jefferson had brought these misuses of the law by Chase, to someone’s attention BEFORE Jefferson was irked about support for Adams, that they would have been more likely to find him guilty and remove him as a judge. Waiting until after the election did make Jefferson look petty and more politically motivated than if these issue were addressed WHEN they first happened.
I keep hearing the criticism that the current Supreme Court is out of step it’s the populace, or that they’re interpreting the laws or Constitution in a way that the majority of Americans disagree with. But I learned in law school that the Supreme Court is *designed* to be a counter-majoritarian branch within the government. They’re intended to write Brown v Board of Education when many people *want* segregated schools. They’re intended to interpret what rights are, even for those who most wouldn’t choose to protect. The Supreme Court protects against the tyranny of the majority. I’m still turning over what this means given the new conservative majority- they’re protecting the rights of the (minority?) of people who are anti-abortion or of fetuses? I also want to point out that the Supreme Court was also very out of step during the 1930s, the last time “packing the court” became a popular refrain. And that the Supreme Court has been very liberal in the recent past, and that pendulum eventually has to swing the other way.
Yes to term limits!
I’ll ask the contrarian question. What’s the best argument AGAINST term limits for SCOTUS? Surely this was discussed around the time of the founding and I’m curious how well those arguments hold up today.