'What I'm Trying To Understand Is How You Think': Kennedy Does Not Let Up Grilling Judicial Nominee

At today's Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) questioned Embry J. Kidd, nominee to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit, about his theory of law.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
account.forbes...
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com

[@thomashood5973]

Wonder why the justice system is a mess?

[@andrewfisher8749]

It would laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

[@jonnyroy2008]

Ask a question....get tap-dancing as an answer...

[@Pinkcows]

Mr. Kennedy is the Best!!!!

[@carloso1886]

WHY ARE MOST NOMINEES FROM ANOTHER RACE WHEN THERE IS MORE EUROPEAN PEOPLE.

[@unknowman1955]

He got to University through affirmative action..and got this position due his colour..This is why Africa is the way it is.

[@MAAATRUTH]

So do these judges get the job or na?

[@rnlgonzales]

Clear results of lowering standards....Affirmitive action and the DEI BS

[@cemetarygates2800]

Now........Tell me Kennedy isn't the best! He's such a brilliant mind IMHO.

[@rivlry1975]

Kennedy isn’t the best

[@Duude125]

@@rivlry1975AOC is.

[@rivlry1975]

@@Duude125 agree

[@qwsa283]

@@Duude125 best joke in this whole section and it flew right over his head lmao!

[@cemetarygates2800]

@@rivlry1975 Commie

[@a.d.morton4624]

Where are they finding these sniveling backhanded creepy, nominees? Who are these people?

[@lewcrowley3710]

stooge farms in the swamp area.

[@theriddlerUSA]

DEI

[@dougsyms]

dems

[@scottycas]

Biden Administration = Marxists

[@stepheneldridge3637]

They're finding anyone who fits their activist criteria. I think the low point was the nominee that had litigated 7 cases total and most of them were driver's license revocations. She ticked all the right boxes though.

[@chrisbrimhall1613]

The candidate is trying so hard to sound so intelligent, but Kennedy sees through the BS

[@lewcrowley3710]

He is either a fool or lazy. What questions did he expect? Kennedy grills about the position and opinions.

[@jasonwhite6463]

Kennedy asked a series of hypos that have never come before this judge. Kennedy was literally asking for his opinion but you find fault in his answers. Why are you so butt hurt?

[@lewcrowley3710]

@@jasonwhite6463 Why are you so defensive? It probably comes from your reading comprehension difficulties? 'Hypos' have to do with the law. Clearly, this guy has no concept of what the new job entails. And to not know HOW this country declares war is silly.

[@jasonwhite6463]

@@lewcrowley3710 Not defensive just tired of right wing idiots that push their mediocrity onto others. No professional's ability to answer a random hypothetical should lead to this much criticism. This may come as a surprise but having a specific profession does not mean you know everything about a specific field.

[@rosssimpson6268]

​@@lewcrowley3710 Judge Kidd answered Kennedy's hypothetical questions perfectly! The law doesn't require instant decisions; it requires correct ones! Judge Kidd's reply should have been exactly what Senator Kennedy (who is far less qualified than the candidate in 'the Law' but experienced in questioning candidates) was looking for!

[@joezalaco3666]

This is what happen when you pick race over intelligence.

[@grundy333]

maybe a federal judge nominee should actually know some federal law, and not just get selected based on "other important factors"...

[@porscheguy3820]

'''Senator do you see that I am black''''???

[@cheefkeef8749]

😂 it’s worked for him so far

[@JiminyKriketz]

Surprised your comment wasnt removed

[@ralphnewcomejr]

That "nominee" is a 🤡

[@whousa642]

Clowns have a talent

[@TomSmith-ls5rn]

All of joey bribe'em's nominee's are 🤡's. This guy is a perfect example!!

[@donjuan6646]

Better not be named John G

[@ThomasRogan-gc5pi]

Absolutely a DEI hire! He's a nitwit 😂

[@richl2501]

Amen John Kennedy, YOU PICKED HIM DRY.

[@nancybillings7055]

The words "my understanding" are unacceptable. Mr. Kidd should know the correct answers to these fairly simple questions. I would hate to have him adjudicating my case.

[@rosssimpson6268]

His answers were perfect! In a situation/set of circumstances not encountered before, a proper Judge defers and does the research, then makes a correct ruling - based on his/her research!

[@alexsheppard2244]

Federal judges case load is 90% criminal and 10% civil, they may see 5-10 cases about delegation of congressional power in their entire career.

[@barbarachieppo9603]

I agree.

[@charleybarley939]

@@rosssimpson6268 I wish I could have told that to the panel for my MA comps!

[@rosssimpson6268]

@@charleybarley939 If you don't know the difference between the 2 situations, you deserve to have failed your MA comps! Like the difference between PLANNING a new long journey and MAKING that new long journey!

[@TheRealMaryLee]

How do these people get out of law school?

[@jeffcrumpley1120]

The parents pay them off

[@LRRPFco52]

When I was just doing my initial general studies, we had this girl in my oral communications class who was verifiably illiterate. She couldn't read her own writing, whatever gibberish it was. She didn't belong anywhere near a college campus, not even in a janitorial capacity. Yet there she was with her Pell Grant and no vocabulary outside of street slang. Guys like this look like geniuses next to her, because all they have to do is show up, put in minimal work, and ace their classes.

[@marthacanady9441]

Do you really not know why? Come on.

[@TheRealMaryLee]

@@marthacanady9441 Yes, that was rhetorical.

[@laymansview5246]

No child left behind, I guess.

[@garycampbell8575]

Another participating trophy hire,,completely ignorant

[@jasonwhite6463]

What have you ever been nominated to do?

[@cheefkeef8749]

@@jasonwhite6463 Based solely on my skin color? Nothing

[@jasonwhite6463]

@@cheefkeef8749 Right. Nothing! That is why you are hating a man based on a lame inconsequential 5 minute video.

[@jblank74]

@@jasonwhite6463 Inconsequential? He seems to lack a fundamental grasp of things Kennedy said the Senate struggles with daily. I'd say that's quite consequential, but to leftists like you, all that matters is that the person is a minority and will issue rulings that empowers the left.

[@richardmize5326]

Just what I was thinking. Woe betide the USA if the DEMs are able to pack the Supreme Court with DEI appointees.

[@nmc5858]

Absolutely disgusting

[@carly2981]

Block them all . DEI will be canceled on November 5th 2024

[@ottersloverclub]

Keep dreaming

[@SK-rr8op]

When you don't qualify to the job....

[@alexsheppard2244]

Federal judges case load is 90% criminal and 10% civil, they may see 5-10 cases about delegation of congressional power in their entire career.

[@savvydirtfarmer]

He said, "I'm not qualified," without saying, "I'm not qualified."

[@tino6846]

Another affirmative action hire

[@GOPETSCOOTER]

I would vote for Kennedy for president. It would be 4 years of excitement.

[@karenharrison885]

He'd make a better judge.

[@argus1393]

Stunning incompetence

[@GraniteRidge]

Best Description From Australia

[@richl2501]

YOU PICKED HIM DRY, John. WELL DONE Senator.

[@ValerieLozano-s1d]

It is better to say nothing and let them think you're a fool, than to say something and prove them right.

[@motivationishere3483]

Or he is just a fool. Kennedy is asking basic questions on easy mode but why he is tripping

[@gingercatz5568]

Wow! He's a judge? Scary!

[@Delatta1961]

The world is so sick of DEI hires. Why can’t these people do a little book work before showing up?

[@jasonwhite6463]

How do you do "book work" to prepare for random hypotheticals? Your comment says more about you than it does this nominee.

[@TheCiphernet]

@@jasonwhite6463 to find out in what circumstances if any congress can delegate its authority.

[@CountryFenderBass]

@@jasonwhite6463 If you can’t answer questions pertaining to your job it’s a problem. He should know the answers to these questions. It is literally law school information. Nothing tricky.

[@jasonwhite6463]

@@CountryFenderBass Right bcuz by default a judge (like any other professional) should be able to answer any random question a person asks them about the general field they work in. You are ridiculous.

[@scottboettcher]

@@jasonwhite6463 He didn't answer any...that's not OK.

[@drak0v]

Reminder these people may sit in judgment of you one day. They are so incompetent and can't answer basic questions. That is scary.

[@psx0005rr]

Clearly, you haven't played the game of politics and saying the "right thing." Because honesty works so well, with our current Supreme Court LOL!

[@Moontunas]

What a dumb candidate

[@machinech183]

The words you are looking for clown is "I don't know." Simple as that.

[@donthompson3484]

Senator Kennedy, You can not dumb yourself down enough to think like this individual !! You have to think box checking for these nominees !

[@bellasheleise]

That was so cringe

[@charles_preston]

With a Capital 'C'.

[@shrpshtr9006]

You cant fix ignorance especially if it was taught as fact.

[@Paulftate]

this DEI nonsense is getting way out of hand ...... vote Trump 👍

[@walleyperch]

The dumpster needs to be impeached for his high crimes according to the constitution

[@karenharrison885]

It's becoming the United States of Africa

[@Paulftate]

@@karenharrison885 I feel your pain 🤘

[@philmulrooney7020]

The density is advanced in this one

[@ronaldadamoli1479]

DEI on full display

[@paulariese260]

He has an appalling lack of knowledge of the Constitution and federal law for a judge.

[@Thuggishdeer]

So DEI hires argue they will rely on more qualified hires for what they don't know

[@mahealanihawaii9830]

Did this guy go to law school? He should just tell the truth straight forward. "I don't know".

[@clark2491]

I cant stand the way this dude talks,and looks.

[@charles_preston]

It appears that he spends more time with his hair stylist, manicurist... than with his jurisprudence!

[@CountryFenderBass]

I’m reading all the liberal pearl clutching and crocodile tears about the unfair and hard questions Kennedy asked this poor guy. That the questions were too hard for him to understand and that there was no way he can answer them. I’m guessing the questions they would be happy with is “What’s your favorite color?” “Do you like pizza?” “ Do you like Puppies or Kittens.”

[@ArticLight14]

All these DEI hires sound exactly the same when responding.

[@Deborah-xn7rp]

This man shows up knowing nothing. Do not confirm this judge.

[@theriddlerUSA]

If I were that guy, I would excuse myself and find another line of work.

[@barbarachieppo9603]

Ikr. I feel a little bad for him on a human level. He's ignorant about many things that should be a gimme. Good Lord.

[@billbryant1288]

DEI = Didn’t Earn It

[@charles_preston]

and.... Done Everyone In.

[@thereallisa1]

Clueless

[@randyharbaugh7819]

he flunked the test

[@porscheguy3820]

Let me guess Howard Law schhol raked 175 out of 175 where our VP graduated from.

[@rosssimpson6268]

You'd be more convincing if you could spell properly!

[@porscheguy3820]

@@rosssimpson6268 anit gots no education or i could not find my readen glasses.

[@rosssimpson6268]

@@porscheguy3820 Thanks for providing the reference to allow me to find your post - that I lost in a YT F-up! I was going to mention that you were also wrong (no surprise) with your guess! The Judge graduated (JD) from Yale Law School and featured highly in that august body's environment!

[@OurSocietyMustChange]

Kennedy is one of the VERY few in congress that ACTUALLY care about us citizens and truly wants to make a difference. What a true patriot in every sense of the word

[@WilliamMurphy-uv9pm]

That said, this guy was likely confirmed by a party-line vote. So, this is all political theater. Aside from declaring himself a communist, murderer, or rapist, which he never said, it was a done deal before he opened his mouth. Is that good? Hardly. Just how it is.

[@xusmico187]

did this guy ever argue a case?

[@nicoleenviljoen8810]

I❤Kennedy ❤

[@barbarachieppo9603]

He's fantastic ❤

[@joaquimfanandes4816]

This man is an embarrassment.

[@MrHiBeta]

Where do they get these nominees from? Geez!

[@gusloader123]

From a list of DEI people collected by the sane geniuses that write Biden's teleprompter words.

[@Tleedog6969]

This is simply stupid 🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️

[@user-ph8zz7zm5f]

The tragic part is most of these people.are getting put in office. We are so done.

[@chevywengryniuk1153]

Omg painful wtf

[@Tleedog6969]

Wow !!!!!🤦🏾‍♂️

[@alfonsecoppola5938]

no preparation before he came ,none

[@zeeman3684]

Chillingly scary simply because I find this everywhere no matter where I do. FJB

[@Mermayydman]

Everyone basically votes party lines im not sure why they waste time with questions.

[@BSinNH]

DEI alive and well. This guy has no business being a judicial nominee.

[@wendellsuiter7869]

Any 9th Grade Student knows the definition of The War Powers Act because it is taught in CIVICS class.

[@machinech183]

They USED to... not anymore.

[@LRRPFco52]

Used to be taught. We have a lifelong friend who is a professor of law at one of the prestigious universities in the United States. She graduated Harvard law cum laude, clerked on SCOTUS, then became a professor. She said 1st year law students (who went through pre-law by the way), don't even know what used to be basic high school civics and government.

[@pastorrosellarollins9065]

HE'S LOOKING DOWN ON SENATOR KENNEDY

[@kma3647]

How does this man pass his first year of law school and not know the answer to the War Powers clause question? And to not be able to articulate the Non-Delegation Clause after a very major SCOTUS ruling just in the past year specifically regarding this issue and runaway authoritarianism by federal bureaucracies. Congress makes the law. Not the Executive. Some unelected bureaucrat doesn't get to just make up a regulation that crushes the coal industry or which uses a puddle to ban ranching on a 150-year old Montana ranch. And judges don't get to legislate from the bench either. I'm not a lawyer. I had a single class on the law in school just to teach me the basics so I could know the Controlled Substances Act well enough to practice and not get arrested. This guy's a professional sitting judge and can't answer. This isn't even a dodge like KBJ did with that "What is a woman?" stunt. This dude flat out didn't know.🤡🌎

[@philipwelsh1862]

Good grief where do they find these puppets they ain’t got a clue bout doing the job they get loads for doing. ANY VACANCY S BIG PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

[@AzarAzosh]

This guy is hiding and he is stupid.

[@richardwilson112]

Crazy Mazie is a joke. This guy is a joke. Arrogant DEI offering.

[@cheecheemen]

The separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the United States government is one of the founding principles of the nation's government. So it follows that, in general, the different branches cannot delegate their powers to each other. However, the Supreme Court has held that in some situations the legislative branch can grant some of its power to administrative agencies. United States Library of Congress, The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation The Supreme Court has sometimes declared categorically that the legislative power of Congress cannot be delegated,1 and on other occasions has recognized more forthrightly, as Chief Justice Marshall did in 1825, that, although Congress may not delegate powers that are strictly and exclusively legislative, it may delegate powers which "[it] may rightfully exercise itself."2 The categorical statement has never been literally true, the Court having upheld the delegation at issue in the very case in which the statement was made.3 The Court has long recognized that administration of the law requires the exercise of discretion,4 and that, in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever-changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives.5 The real issue is where to draw the line. Chief Justice Marshall recognized that there is some difficulty in discerning the exact limits, and that the precise boundary of this power is a subject of delicate and difficult inquiry, into which a court will not enter unnecessarily.6 Accordingly, the Court's solution has been to reject delegation challenges in all but the most extreme cases, and to accept delegations of vast powers to the President or to administrative agencies. With the exception of a brief period in the 1930s when the Court was striking down New Deal legislation on a variety of grounds, the Court has consistently upheld grants of authority that have been challenged as invalid delegations of legislative power. The modern doctrine may be traced to the 1928 case, J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, in which the Court, speaking through Chief Justice Taft, upheld Congress's delegation to the President of the authority to set tariff rates that would equalize production costs in the United States and competing countries.7 Although formally invoking the contingency theory, the Court's opinion also looked forward, emphasizing that in seeking the cooperation of another branch Congress was restrained only according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the situation.8 This vague statement was elaborated somewhat in the statement that the Court would sustain delegations whenever Congress provided an intelligible principle to which the President or an agency must conform.9 As characterized by the Court, the delegations struck down in 1935 in Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan10 and Schechter Poultry v. U.S.11 were not only broad but unprecedented. Both cases involved provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act. At issue in Panama Refining was a delegation to the President of authority to prohibit interstate transportation of what was known as hot oil-oil produced in excess of quotas set by state law. The problem was that the Act provided no guidance to the President in determining whether or when to exercise this authority, and required no finding by the President as a condition of exercise of the authority. Congress "declared no policy, . . . established no standard, [and] laid down no rule," but rather "left the matter to the President without standard or rule, to be dealt with as he pleased."12 At issue in Schechter was a delegation to the President of authority to promulgate codes of fair competition that could be drawn up by industry groups or prescribed by the President on his own initiative. The codes were required to implement the policies of the Act, but those policies were so general as to be nothing more than an endorsement of whatever might be thought to promote the recovery and expansion of the particular trade or industry. The President's authority to approve, condition, or adopt codes on his own initiative was similarly devoid of meaningful standards, and "virtually unfettered."13 This broad delegation was "without precedent." The Act supplied "no standards" for any trade or industry group, and, unlike other broad delegations that had been upheld, did not set policies that could be implemented by an administrative agency required to follow "appropriate administrative procedure." "Instead of prescribing rules of conduct, [the Act] authorize[d] the making of codes to prescribe them."14 Delegations to Administrative Agencies Since 1935, the Court has not struck down a delegation to an administrative agency.15 Rather, the Court has approved, without deviation, Congress's ability to delegate power under broad standards.16 The Court has upheld, for example, delegations to administrative agencies to determine excessive profits during wartime,17 to determine unfair and inequitable distribution of voting power among securities holders,18 to fix fair and equitable commodities prices,19 to determine just and reasonable rates,20 and to regulate broadcast licensing as the public interest, convenience, or necessity require.21 During all this time the Court "has not seen fit . . . to enlarge in the slightest [the] relatively narrow holdings" of Panama Refining and Schechter.22 Again and again, the Court has distinguished the two cases, sometimes by finding adequate standards in the challenged statute,23 sometimes by contrasting the vast scope of the power delegated by the National Industrial Recovery Act,24 and sometimes by pointing to required administrative findings and procedures that were absent in the NIRA.25 The Court has also relied on the constitutional doubt principle of statutory construction to narrow interpretations of statutes that, interpreted broadly, might have presented delegation issues.26 In more recent years, however, the modern application of the J. W. Hampton Court's intelligible principle test and the broad deference it affords congressional delegations of authority to the other branches has met with growing skepticism from some members of the Court.27 The 2019 case of Gundy v. United States highlighted an emerging split on the High Court with respect its nondelegation doctrine jurisprudence.28 In that case, a criminal defendant challenged a provision of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) allowing the Attorney General to (1) specify the applicability of SORNA's registration requirements to individuals convicted of a sex offense prior to the statute's enactment and (2) prescribe rules for registration in jurisdictions where the offender resides, works, or is a student.29 Writing for a four-Justice plurality, Justice Kagan interpreted this provision as limiting the Attorney General's authority to require pre-Act offenders to register as soon as feasible,30 concluding that the delegation easily passed constitutional muster.31 For the plurality, the Attorney General's authority under SORNA, when compared to other delegations the Court had previously upheld, was distinctly small-bore.32 Notably, Justice Kagan's opinion was met by a dissent, authored by Justice Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, which argued that the statute unconstitutionally provided the Attorney General unfettered discretion.33 Further, the dissenters claimed that the modern intelligible principle test has no basis in the original meaning of the Constitution or in historical practice.34 In response, the plurality, noting that delegations akin to the one in SORNA are ubiquitous in the U.S. Code, argued that as a matter of pragmatism the Court should afford deference to Congress's judgments that such broad delegations are necessary.35 Providing the fifth vote to affirm the petitioner's conviction was Justice Alito, who, while agreeing that the plurality correctly applied the modern nondelegation case law, indicated he would support [the] effort of the dissenting Justices to reconsider the intelligible principle test once a majority of the Court concurred in rethinking the doctrine.36 Accordingly, Gundy witnessed the Court evenly split on how deferential the Court should be with regard to congressional delegations to the other branches, raising questions as to whether the nondelegation doctrine would remain moribund. Related Resources: Constitution Basics: Separation of Powers Article I, Section II: The House of Representatives Article I, Section III: The Senate

[@rosssimpson6268]

Except they F-ed it up! This has resulted in Judges (and Prosecutors) being appointed/elected by/as politicians - allowing claims of bias to be raised - or actually happen! A recent New Hork /state trial being a classic example!!

[@jamiewoods9222]

Goof grief, where do they find these nominees from a box of Fruit Loops

[@stevesheets9851]

This guy's not smart enough to run a garden hose.

[@charles_preston]

But he looks the part!

[@jerrystaley1563]

Aren't these nominees already judges from lower courts? Sad to think what the future holds for this country.

[@Stonesour1]

No wonder some of the wrong people are in jail and the criminals are free to roam

[@Fall599]

Setting the bar to the lowest rung…

[@kencastaneda9361]

Please people we must physically show this to our friends and family so they can see and hear for themselves as to what’s going on within our government and this corrupt administration. United we stand so as to protect our women and children. TRUMP PROTECTING CHRISTIANITY 24

[@maureenbill6844]

The arrogance of this candidate is astounding. Kennedy is brilliant as always.

[@christophermitchell7925]

“I can’t answer questions, because I’m too stupid to understand them”.

[@Gotlaxiq]

Pay attention. The nominee reverse engineers the law to validate his positions. He starts with the desired outcome, interpratvely deconstructing the law, validating his decision.

[@TS-wh4ey]

Why is the nominee wearing Groucho Marx glasses ? ? His nose does not match his face !!

[@henryblicharz5556]

Senator , thank you for your hard work for Americans but you’re up against Hollywood!

[@motivationishere3483]

Come on, he is clearly incompetent. Hope he is not ruining many people's lives

[@jaysoncarter5093]

I think the senator needs to keep a pocket dictionary. I know all of that from the Iraq War, and, weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION with BUSH/CHENEY.

[@chuckinhouston9952]

You flunked the test. Reject. Who’s next?

[@greensombrero3641]

empty suit - we see this all over corporate america - seeded policies from our adversaries

[@gatvestreet9248]

Not sure I’ve ever seen a judicial nominee so uncomfortable and clueless regardless if Dem or Republican. He looked completely lost. As if he had never heard of these subjects before.

[@charleybarley939]

It looked like an MA comprehensive exam nightmare.

[@rnews5750]

This guy is going to the 11th circus? He'll fit right in.

[@sixslinger9951]

this dude should not be a judge! he is dangerous for society

[@TylerGray-r8l]

The country needs truck drivers.

[@theresnocomingback]

I know more about the war powers act than this dude

[@PhilipVaughn-ri8vb]

his English vernacular is weak

[@MrThenry1988]

DEI is becoming a problem.

[@ThomasRogan-gc5pi]

This guy seriously has a law degree 😢

[@Imperious-Aspect-of-Valor]

Affirmative action hire

[@gusloader123]

uummmmm,,,, wellllll,,,, aaahhhhh,,,,,, Embry J. Kidd must be a Biden appointee with that excellent mastery of legal and legislative words and theories.

[@EzraWest-d3h]

You are not to smart

[@pains1956]

jajajaja Sentor Kennedy reminds me of detective Columbo....he plays ignorant and then strikes...jajajaja

[@darlaclark4342]

Kennedy’s a Gem! 💎 He’s a grandfather or Father everybody wish they had !someone with strength and tenacity !! And No BullShite !!!

[@t10claytempered16]

Shakespeare, Jefferson, Lincoln, Thomas Sowell, Douglas Murry or Thomas Payne,... you" aint!". What a disgrace. Pseudo qualified, Traffic Court Judge it would appear.

[@richardadams6988]

This poor minded man, acts so inhibited !!!!! He's going to make it, cause...he can't answer anything !!!! Just like are politicians !!!!!

[@DavidStarr-eg2kv]

Getting grilled by this Senator has to be frightening 😅

[@lesliechow7286]

Only if you’re truly unqualified.