Nomination of Roberts as CJ (of SCOTUS) is an Outrage to Women

.

It needs to be heard.

wildflower

nominated.

Let us all hope and pray we can delay this nomination long enough for Bu$hco to be driven from office and the nomination is dropped.

I knew Kim over 20 years ago, from New Orleans NOW. There's probably nothing left in that city now.:(

This was the intent all along.

And don't forget that bill the House/Senate will try to submit this coming week, with regards to Social Security.

Thanks and Nominated!

Period. All other bullshit aside, decisions by the Supreme Court tend to affect matters of prime importance to women as a group more than they do to the rest of us. Therefore, my opinion as stated in the subject line.

For whatever it's worth.

Redstone

And recommended!

And to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, Bush's choice as a woman justice is none other than US Representative from Florida, Katherine Harris!

people to show her how to apply makeup properly. just so she looks good in the papers, mind you. so they won't have something absolutely ridiculous to start with when distorting their images to shape politics.

But I frankly wouldn't be surprised.

Now that the little prince has upped the ante, the Dems MUST do the same.

They need to demand the Roberts Solicitor General documents to see what he said about Poppy's 1992 pardons of his Iran/Contra co-conspirators. And what he thought about Poppy illegally concealing his diary from the special prosecutor.

They need to make it clear that Roberts gets pulled or Poppy goes to jail.

We need to demand that they play some hardball. Before they allow these thugs to kill more Americans.

--

I've been wanting an Iran/Contra rematch since the first one was called on account of politics.

As the world becomes more and more surreal.....
He shouldn't even be on the Supreme court. I've lost words to describe this shit. Again.

they stood together and snapped the frail, mr.burns-like legs from under the crony/oil/war-preoccupied rethug party. these weasels need a good scolding! it's time they're cuckolded. every rethug's wife should refuse him sex and feed him chopped liver until he backs NOW. 8^) and meanwhile, Democratic wives everywhere should serve up luscious steak on top of hot whipped buttered mashed potatoes, with al dente asparagus on the side. just so we can rub it in their stupid faces. that's all i'm saying. am i right? 8^)

btw, Dem husbands should bring flowers home every night with the fresh steaks and stuff.

look, a guy can dream, can't he? wait... no wonder i'm not married.

for your neighbours to be shocked and appalled about -- in sympathy with you, and as women and people.

I remember very clearly talking to USAmericans on the net back during the 2000 campaign, when the cool pro-choice heads were urging that alarmist sentiments be quelled because Bush really wasn't going to use his predicted Supreme Court appointments to send women back to the 19th century.

I'll keep my fingers crossed ...

Bush had limited choices for Chief Justice. Yes, a smart moderate President would have picked Kennedy. Thomas is too dumb. Souter is not reliably enough conservative for Bush. I am just really glad he didn't pick Scalia. That would have been the ultimate FU choice.

Considering Roberts' writings as a young attorney,while he was employed by the Reagan administration. Is it at all possible that his views on civil rights, and women's rights have tempered or even moderated (that is gotten more centrist) from the inflammatory positions he was discussing 25 years ago?

http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.999999/k.F245/Civil_Rights_Equal_Opportunity_and_Freedom_from_Discrimination.htm#housing

Discrimination and segregation in education and housing

While serving in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, Roberts repeatedly took positions that would have had the effect of limiting the ability of people to turn to the federal courts to challenge state and local laws and policies that resulted in unequal access to educational opportunities.

Thirty years ago, as part of a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment and activity, the Texas legislature passed a law designed to keep undocumented immigrant children from attending public schools in the state. In 1982, in its ruling in Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas law as unconstitutional. The Court majority said it was “difficult to conceive of a rational justification for penalizing these children” for being in the U.S. based on the actions of their parents. “By denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our nation.”<61> The decision was a major victory for the constitutional principle of equal protection under the law, and made a huge difference in the lives of thousands – if not millions – of children and their families. The notion that the government would choose to marginalize a generation of young people was viewed by Justice William Brennan as an “affront to one of the goals of the equal protection clause: the abolition of government barriers presenting unreasonable obstacles to advancement on the basis of individual merit.”<62>

http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.999999/k.F245/Civil_Rights_Equal_Opportunity_and_Freedom_from_Discrimination.htm#education
Civil Rights, Equal Opportunity, and Freedom from Discrimination

Even though the White House is refusing to release documents relating to Roberts’ tenure as principal deputy solicitor general, information that is now public demonstrates a pattern of Roberts taking positions that would restrict civil rights protections and limit the role of the courts in protecting individual rights. As a political appointee in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, Roberts was an energetic proponent of overturning the bipartisan civil rights enforcement policies of the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations and limiting the scope of the civil rights laws, cutting back on remedies for discrimination, and watering down the Voting Rights Act.
Regarding Roberts’ tenure in the solicitor general’s office, former colleague Susan Carle writes, “He had very strong ideological views about the law, and he saw his mission in life as bringing these conservative views to bear on civil rights and anti-discrimination laws.”<19>

http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.999999/k.F245/Civil_Rights_Equal_Opportunity_and_Freedom_from_Discrimination.htm#education

Voting Rights

The federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a crowning achievement of the civil rights movement, but as a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith, Roberts fought hard against congressional efforts to restore its full effectiveness. A response to decades of brutal, systematic disenfranchisement of black Americans by many southern states, the law contained provisions for federal officials to exercise oversight over local registration procedures and changes in state laws related to voting. It led to a tremendous increase in civic participation among African American voters. In 1980, however, a divided Supreme Court weakened the Voting Rights Act by upholding a system of at-large districts that effectively prevented blacks from being represented on the Mobile, Alabama city council. The Court ruled in the City of Mobile v. Bolden case that the system was not created with the intent of discriminating against black voters and therefore did not violate the Act.

Civil rights advocates and legislators of both parties agreed that this decision violated the intent of Congress and previous court decisions and would make effective enforcement of voting rights much more difficult. “Local officials don’t wallpaper their offices with memos about how to restrict minority-group members’ access to the polling booth,” noted Vernon Jordan, Jr., then-president of the National Urban League.<20> In October, 1981, the House of Representatives passed by an overwhelming margin of 389 to 21 a renewal of the Voting Rights Act that restored the effects test in section 2 of the Act.<21> In response to concerns raised by some, both the text of and the House Report on the bill made clear that the legislation “does not create a right of proportional representation” and that “the fact that members of a racial or language minority group have not been elected in numbers equal to the group’s proportion of the population does not, in itself, constitute a violation.”<22>

Until then, the Administration had not taken a position on the issue or on the Voting Rights Act. Documents reveal that Roberts urged the Administration to oppose the House bill and promoted efforts to do so because of the “effects” language.<23> In early November, 1981, he praised the Mobile decision to the Attorney General and complained that the House bill would improperly “give courts far broader license to interfere with voting practices” with discriminatory effects.<24> He wrote numerous op-eds and talking points to promote the opposition to the House bill. In what could have been a precursor to later views about “federalism” and “states’ rights”, Roberts wrote that the effects test would produce a “drastic alteration of local governmental affairs” which should be disfavored “under our federal system.”<25> He used charged language in claiming that “s Justice Stewart correctly noted in his opinion in City of Mobile v. Bolden, incorporation of an effects test in sec. 2 would establish essentially a quota system for electoral politics by creating a right to proportional racial representation.” (emphasis in original)<26> This was despite the fact that the House language and report were directly to the contrary, and that Justice Stewart never used the word quota in his opinion. Roberts continued to use such language throughout his advocacy in 1981-82.<27>

As the debate continued, however, it was clear that conservatives as well as progressives disagreed with the Administration’s position. For example, James Sensenbrenner and Newt Gingrich voted for the House bill, while Dan Quayle was an original Senate co-sponsor of the same language. Roberts was asked to prepare “fallback” or compromise positions. In each such effort reflected in the files, however, Roberts stubbornly insisted on requiring some form of proof of intent; even when proposing language allegedly adopting the “effects test in the House bill”, Roberts proposed that the challenged voting practice must be proven to have been “used invidiously” to harm minorities.<28> Roberts apparently never suggested that the intent of the House bill to avoid proportional representation simply be spelled out in the language of the legislation.

http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.1000007/k.9695/Access_to_Justice.htm

ACCESS TO JUSTICE
Roberts on many occasions has called for a restricted role for the courts. If he is confirmed to the Supreme Court, Americans seeking relief in the federal courts on a wide range of issues, from discrimination to environmental protection are likely to have reduced access to justice.
As previously mentioned, as special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith in the Reagan Justice Department, Roberts argued that Congress could strip the Supreme Court of the authority to rule on cases regarding school prayer, abortion, busing for desegregation and other issues, a position even more extreme than that advanced by Theodore Olson and adopted by the Reagan administration. Even Robert Bork believed that the court stripping plans were unconstitutional. David Brink, then President of the American Bar Association, described the court-stripping bills as “a legislative threat to our nation that may lead to the most serious constitutional crisis since our great Civil War.” <95> The Conference of Chief Justices of the States resolved unanimously that court stripping bills are a “hazardous experiment with the vulnerable fabric of the nation’s judicial system.”<96> But when Olson argued that court stripping legislation was a threat to checks and balances, Roberts wrote, “Real courage would be to read the Constitution as it should be read and not kowtow” to liberal thinkers.<97>

In addition to previously mentioned cases in which Roberts was involved as principal deputy solicitor general are a number in which the government was arguing to restrict individuals’ access to justice. These include briefs in two cases arguing that citizens lack the authority to sue the government over environmental harms, and a brief in which the solicitor general’s office urged the Court to severely curtail Miranda rights by ruling that federal courts may not entertain Miranda claims in habeas corpus petitions filed by state prisoners.<98>

http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.1000009/k.C7A2/Presidential_Power.htm


PRESIDENTIAL POWER, CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY, AND ROLE OF COURTS
One of the most important issues regularly before the Supreme Court is the constitutional authority of Congress to enact and enforce legislation. A critical issue facing the Court, particularly given the war on terror, is the extent of executive authority, and whether the President will exercise untrammeled unilateral power, unchecked by the Court. Also, in recent years, a narrow majority on the Court has pursued a new “federalism” revolution, undermining congressional power through narrow interpretations of the Commerce Clause and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
John Roberts’ record raises troubling concerns about his legal views concerning the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government. In particular, it appears that Roberts views the Constitution as creating a supreme executive, and also that he would support the “federalist” revolution that seeks to interpret the Constitution in a manner that would undercut the authority of Congress to enact and enforce laws protecting the important rights and interests of all Americans.

Executive Power
While working in the Reagan and Bush administrations, Roberts was a strong advocate of presidential power, including even at the expense of independent regulatory agencies. For example, in a July 15, 1983 memorandum to White House counsel Fred Fielding, Roberts commented favorably on proposed Justice Department testimony suggesting that it was time to “reconsider the existence” of independent regulatory agencies and to “take action to bring them back within the executive branch.” Roberts recognized that the suggestion was “provocative” but specifically agreed that such agencies are a “Constitutional anomaly.”<99> This view of independent agencies like the FCC and the FTC is extremely troubling. It would significantly expand presidential power and undermine the independence of agencies charged with regulating corporate behavior.

In recent years, the administration of President George W. Bush has engaged in some of the most extensive uses and abuses of executive power in American history. Several legal challenges to the administration’s exercise of power have come before Roberts in his short career as a federal judge. He has shown significant deference to presidential authority and the executive branch in its use of power and its interpretation of law.

For example, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, No. 04-5393, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 14315 (D.C. Cir. 2005), Judge Roberts joined in a 3-0 ruling that upheld the military commissions created by the Bush administration to try foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay for war crimes. The ruling was such a sweeping acceptance of the administration’s position that one journalist wrote that “Roberts signed on to a blank-check grant of power to the Bush administration to try suspected terrorists without basic due-process protections.”<100> (Several legal ethicists have raised questions about the propriety of Roberts hearing and ruling on a case so important to the Bush administration at the very time he was actively interviewing with White House officials for a possible Supreme Court nomination.)<101>

http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.1000003/k.30F5/Privacy_and_Reproductive_Freedom.htm

PRIVACY AND REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM
Roberts’ record strongly suggests that he does not believe that the Constitution guarantees or protects a right to privacy. In a 1981 memo that Roberts wrote as special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith, Roberts referred dismissively to the “so-called ‘right to privacy’” that formed the basis of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.<73> And an article that Roberts apparently drafted for the attorney general derided the Court’s earlier Griswold v. Connecticut ruling that privacy is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.<74>
During his confirmation hearing for the appeals court, Roberts refused to say whether he believes there is a constitutional right to privacy,<75> even though more than two-thirds of Americans believe a Supreme Court nominee should be required to tell senators the answer to that question.<76> Roberts’ refusal to answer questions about a right to privacy stands in stark contrast to the testimony of then-Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg. When asked a specific question about a right to privacy, Ginsburg said:

There is a constitutional right to privacy composed of at least two distinguishable parts. One is the privacy expressed most vividly in the fourth amendment: The Government shall not break into my home or my office without a warrant, based on probable cause; the Government shall leave me alone. The other is the notion of personal autonomy. The Government shall not make my decisions for me. I shall make, as an individual, uncontrolled by my Government, basic decisions that affect my life’s course. Yes, I think that what has been placed under the label privacy is a constitutional right that has those two elements, the right to be let alone and the right to make basic decisions about one’s life’s course.<77>

Justice Ginsburg’s clear and direct answer is particularly relevant given that Progress for America is citing a supposed “Ginsburg Precedent” to justify Roberts’ refusal to answer questions on important constitutional issues.<78>


Roberts’ apparent belief that the Constitution does not protect a right to privacy is extraordinarily troubling and would potentially have a very damaging impact on Americans’ freedom to live their lives free of government intrusion into the most intimate decisions made by individuals and families, including decisions regarding medical treatment. Roberts’ writing about Griswold indicates that he would see no constitutional barrier to laws prohibiting even married couples from using contraception. And his hostility to the notion of a constitutional right to privacy certainly suggests that he would not have supported the Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned state sodomy laws applying to consenting adults in private. Such laws had a devastating impact on peoples’ lives because they were used to justify depriving them of jobs and even custody of their children.

Reviewing Roberts’ record on privacy, a USA Today editorial questioned whether “few would want a nation in which there is no limit on government intrusion into personal lives” and noted, “Three current justices…have questioned whether a right to privacy exists. The court doesn’t need a fourth, not least because the anti-privacy argument is a denial of history and basic American values.”<79>


Reproductive Freedom
In 1990, as political deputy to Solicitor General Ken Starr, a Roberts brief urged the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision protecting women’s constitutional right to reproductive choice. He did so in a case that did not directly involve the validity of Roe v. Wade (Rather, it involved the validity under the First Amendment of an abortion “gag rule” regulation, which prohibited federally funded family planning clinics from discussing abortion with patients.) Roberts’ brief proclaimed that “e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled” and that the Court’s ruling that a woman has a fundamental right to make her own reproductive choices about abortion has “no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.”<80> Documents concerning this case, Rust v. Sullivan, are among those being sought by the Judiciary Committee Democrats in their document request to the administration.<81>
In another Supreme Court case, Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, Roberts as principal deputy solicitor general urged a narrow interpretation of a federal civil rights law that would prevent it from being used to protect women seeking abortions and reproductive health clinics that were under siege from a national campaign by Operation Rescue. The United States was not a party in the case and need not have chosen to weigh in, but nonetheless did so on the side of those who were engaged in unlawful and sometimes violent measures to prevent women from exercising their constitutional right to reproductive freedom. At issue was the applicability to the clinic blockaders of a law passed in 1871 to prohibit mobs from preventing Americans from exercising their constitutional rights – a law known as the Ku Klux Klan Act. A federal district court ruled in favor of the clinics and the appeals court affirmed. Roberts, while saying the Justice Department was not defending Operation Rescue’s actions, argued against the application of the civil rights law because he contended that the blockade of the clinics did not amount to discrimination against women.<82>

While the Bray case was still pending in the Supreme Court, a federal judge in Wichita, Kansas ordered federal marshals to help keep clinics open in that city in the face of a massive blockade by Operation Rescue. Patients and staff were physically harassed by huge mobs designed to overwhelm the ability of small police forces to keep clinics open. Here again the Justice Department weighed in on the side of Operation Rescue to argue that the Ku Klux Klan Act did not apply and that the court had no authority to issue its order, and Roberts went on national television to defend the Department’s action and arguments.<83> As he did in Bray, Roberts contended that the federal court had no role to play in upholding the rights of the clinic patients, one more example of Roberts arguing to limit the scope of federal civil rights laws and the role of the federal courts in upholding them.

http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.1000005/k.D495/Religious_Liberty_and_Separation_of_Church_and_State.htm

Religious Liberty and Separation of Church and State

Roberts has a record of hostility to the separation of church and state, which protects all Americans' religious liberty. Recently released documents from his years in the Reagan administration include his endorsement of a speech attacking "four decades of misguided" Supreme Court decisions on the role of religion in public life,<88> a formulation that reflects Radical Right leaders' hostility to landmark decisions upholding church-state separation and affirming government neutrality toward religion.
Just this June, the Supreme Court barely reaffirmed the key constitutional principle of government neutrality toward religion by a 5-4 vote, with Justice O'Connor casting a decisive vote. Jay Sekulow, who heads Pat Robertson's legal arm, the American Center for Law and Justice, recently told archconservative journalist Hugh Hewitt in regard to that case, "I definitely think that a John Roberts on the Court, with his view of the Establishment Clause, would have come out the other way on that. We would have carried the day."<89> Indeed, Roberts' record clearly indicates that he would allow government endorsement and favoritism of religion; his confirmation could open the door to a range of activities that threaten religious liberty, including coercive religious practices in public schools.

Roberts' record in this area spans a large portion of his career. In 1985, while serving in the Reagan White House, Roberts wrote a memo in which he referred approvingly to then-Justice Rehnquist's effort to "revolutionize Establishment Clause jurisprudence" by overturning the Supreme Court's long-established criteria for determining when government laws and policies violate the Establishment Clause (the "Lemon test").<90> The Rehnquist dissent came in a case in which the Supreme Court overturned an Alabama law authorizing public schools to being the day with a minute of silence for "meditation or voluntary prayer" (Wallace v. Jaffree), a ruling that Roberts said "seems indefensible."<91>

In another internal memo, Roberts reviewed a proposed speech by Education Secretary William Bennett, which depicted the Supreme Court's efforts to uphold church-state separation as betraying "a hostility to religion not demanded by the Constitution."<92> Among the cases Bennett singled out for criticism was a 1980 decision (Stone v. Graham) striking down a Kentucky law requiring that every public school classroom in the state post a copy of the Ten Commandments. Roberts said he had "no quarrel with Bennett on the merits."

I have the privelege of knowing Kim Gandy and she is right, Roberts is a horrible choice for Chief Justice but I think he will probably be confirmed because until middle America's rights are curtailed they will not care. Women, people of color, gays and lesbians just do not matter to the average Joe but once they are messed with then things might change.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/090605Y.shtml

John Roberts' career has established his credentials as an uncompassionate conservative. He has worked consistently to deny access to the courts to individuals who have suffered harm like those in New Orleans. He has long been an enemy of civil rights - for the poor, for minorities, for women, for the disabled, for workers, and for a clean and safe environment.

Roberts tried to cut back the federal law that allows people to sue the government when they have been deprived of their federal rights. When he worked at the Solicitor General's office in the George Bush I administration, Roberts wrote an amicus brief in which he argued that the state of Virginia should not reimburse hospitals for Medicaid claims at reasonable rates. Roberts said the Medicaid Act did not create any enforceable rights. Roberts would likely deny relief to people in New Orleans who seek to recover medical costs from a government that failed to protect them.

Roberts viewed legislation to fortify the Fair Housing Act as "government intrusion."

Roberts condemned a Supreme Court decision striking down a Texas law that allowed schools to deny admission to the children of undocumented workers.

Roberts fought for a narrow interpretation of the Voting Rights Act that would have made it much harder for minorities to get elected to public office. He mischaracterized the Act as requiring "a quota system for electoral politics." Robert's characterization of the Voting Rights Act borders on racism.

Roberts contended that Congress could pass a law to prevent all federal courts from ordering busing to achieve school desegregation, a position much more extreme than that adopted by the Reagan administration. Roberts would likely have agreed with his boss William Rehnquist, who argued to his boss Justice Robert Jackson that the racist Plessy v. Ferguson's separate but equal doctrine should be maintained.

Roberts took the position that affirmative action programs are bound to fail because they require recruiting "inadequately prepared candidates," another unfounded and racist stance.

Roberts has referred to the "so-called 'right to privacy'" in the Constitution; he argued that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled. Roberts' position would consign poor women who could not afford to travel to a state that does allow abortion to coat hangers in back alleys. Roberts would likely vote to uphold state laws that made the sale of contraceptives illegal, which the Court struck down in Griswold v. Connecticut.

Roberts worked to keep women who have suffered gender discrimination out of court. He argued for a narrow interpretation of Title IX that would effectively eviscerate its protections altogether. Roberts wrote an amicus brief in which he argued that a student who was sexually molested by her high school teacher was not entitled to compensatory damages under Title IX. Fortunately, the Supreme Court held otherwise, saying that the girl would have "no remedy at all" if it had adopted Roberts' position.

Roberts ridiculed the gender pay equity theory of equal pay for comparable work as a "radical redistributive concept." He mocked female Republican members of Congress who supported comparable worth, writing, "Their slogan might as well be 'from each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.'"

Roberts supported a dramatic weakening of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. He maintained that a deaf student who got by in school by lip-reading and using a hearing aid was not entitled under the Act to receive the services of a sign-language interpreter in the classroom.

Roberts defended Toyota for firing a woman with carpal tunnel syndrome.

Roberts argued on behalf of the National Mining Association that West Virginia citizens could not prevent mining companies from extracting coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams.

Throughout his career, John Roberts has acted without "goodwill and decency toward others." His positions have demonstrated a mean spirit that flies in the face of what we like to think America stands for. The 50-year-old Roberts would have the opportunity to shape the nation's highest court for the next two or three decades. A Roberts Court would threaten the rights of all but the rich and powerful. It is time for the Democrats to utter the "f" word: Filibuster.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists. She writes a weekly column for t r u t h o u t.

Click here to ask your Senators to vote no on John Roberts:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/ehpg0FNZNZ0QSw03530Es

In July of this year, Roberts sat on a three-judge D.C. Court of
Appeals panel hearing the "Hamdan" case, and voted to uphold the Bush

Administration's use of military tribunals to try prisoners held on
terrorism accusations at Guantanamo Bay. Yet at the same time, he was
interviewing for the Supreme Court position with some of the very same
Administration officals named in that lawsuit. On July 15th, Roberts
met with President Bush (also a named defendant in the suit) for his
final Supreme Court interview -- and ruled in favor of the
Administration in the Hamdan case.

Click here to tell your Senators that Roberts' ethics don't make the
grade for the Supreme Court:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/ehpg0FNZNZ0QSw03530Es