Bill Frist's comments on "Justice Sunday"

[Upchurch]

article: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20050425/ap_on_go_co/senate_judges)
"When we think judicial decisions are outside mainstream American values, we will say so," [Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist] told a rally dubbed "Justice Sunday — Stopping The Filibuster Against People of Faith." "But we must also be clear that the balance of power among all three branches requires respect — not retaliation."Correct me if I'm wrong, but I wanted to comment on this statement:
It is not the judiciary's job to make decisions based on mainstream American values. It is the judiciary's job to make decisions based first on the US Constitution and secondly on US law.
The filibuster refered to is the blocking of President Bush's court nominees within the legislature, not between the three branches.
Unless he is refering to the fact that the executive branch nominees are being blocked by some members of the legislative branch, in which case he is being disingenuous. It is not all exective branch nominees that are being blocked, only seven or so.
It boggles my mind that the GOP is painting the picture that filibustering is somehow unethical or cheating when Strom Thurman (I believe) still holds the record for the longest filibuster in US history at 24 hours. Not to mention that the GOP used this very tactic themselves during the Clinton administration.
"If these senators are not prepared to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities, then why are they here in the first place?" said Frist. I don't know if I am more appalled by the hypocracy or the blatent pandering to the religious right.

"Conservative". yeah, right.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Not to mention that the GOP used this very tactic themselves during the Clinton administration.


Hmm, I don't know about that. During the Clinton administration, the Republicans controlled the Senate, didn't they? Why would they filibuster? I could be wrong, but I thought they blocked some of Clinton's appointmnets not by filibuster but by those nominees not getting out of committee. There is a difference.

Lurker

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Lurker
Hmm, I don't know about that. During the Clinton administration, the Republicans controlled the Senate, didn't they? Why would they filibuster? I could be wrong, but I thought they blocked some of Clinton's appointmnets not by filibuster but by those nominees not getting out of committee. There is a difference. I'll admit that I was going off of my shoddy memory rather than a reliable source of information.

(Is there an effective difference between not getting out of committee and filibustering or is it a technical difference? I'll plead ignorance here.)

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Is there an effective difference between not getting out of committee and filibustering or is it a technical difference? Different rules/procedures, same result.

It used to be a senate rule that in order for a nominee to get past the judiciary committe at least one member of the minority party had to give thumbs-up. This was scrapped under GOP leadership several years ago.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Upchurch
It boggles my mind that the GOP is painting the picture that filibustering is somehow unethical or cheating when Strom Thurman (I believe) still holds the record for the longest filibuster in US history at 24 hours. Not to mention that the GOP used this very tactic themselves during the Clinton administration.

1) The longest filibuster in history was conducted by eighteen Democrats and 1 Republican, it lasted 75 days.

2) The longest lone filibuster in history was conducted by Democrat Strom Thurmond in the 1950s.

3) As far as I know, the GOP never filibustered any judicial nominations while Clinton was president, neither during the years when they held the majority nor when they held the minority. I'm aware that there were attempts by some Republicans to filibuster, but the Leadership wouldn't agree to support those efforts.

4) In 1994, the Democratic majority launched a campaign ("Action, not Gridlock", they called it) to end the modern filibuster altogether.


Majority parties hate the filibuster, minority parties like it.

Instead of letting your mind boggle, learn more about what's going on.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Upchurch

It boggles my mind that the GOP is painting the picture that filibustering is somehow unethical or cheating when Strom Thurman (I believe) still holds the record for the longest filibuster in US history at 24 hours.

There's a few things wrong with this.

A. They want to change the rules for confirming judges only, not get rid of the general filibuster.

B. Strom Thurmond's filibuster was done as a democrat against a GOP bill. Currently the GOP keeps alluding to the filibuster being used against civil rights to try to paint it in a bad image. This is probably causing some of the confusion we see in item A. Also, the dems are spinning this as an absolute power grab thereby adding to the total filibuster removal meme.

Bill Frist and the gang have a lot to learn from Reagan/Gingrich. Small messages on big ideas, repeat repeat repeat. They are getting caught up in a spin war right now without a consistent message and are losing it badly.

Personally, I've always been againt the general filibuster and wish one party or the other would get rid of it. The problem is, neither wants to give away the main obstruction tool for when they are in the minority.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Lurker
Hmm, I don't know about that. During the Clinton administration, the Republicans controlled the Senate, didn't they? Why would they filibuster?

It's not impossible for a minority coalition (formed however) to use the filibuster to stop action.

A splinter group from the majority party could gather a couple of minority members and get 41 votes against cloture. I don't know if it happened during the Clinton administration, but it could have.

Of course, if the splinter group split off in opposition to the leadership, then Upchurch's complaint (presumably revised to reflect the Republican's actual stated position - that they believe filibustering of nominees is wrong) wouldn't make much sense. "The Republicans" would still be against such filibusters. As I said above, some Republicans tried to filibuster at least one Clinton nominee, and they couldn't get enough support to do so.

MattJ

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'll admit that I was going off of my shoddy memory rather than a reliable source of information.

(Is there an effective difference between not getting out of committee and filibustering or is it a technical difference? I'll plead ignorance here.)

Oh, the end result is the same - no vote in the Senate. That is why the Republicans are crying crocodile tears about it. They just used a different weapon against Clinton to the same effect. Their remonstrations about "just wanting a vote" is silly.

Of course, the Dems look pretty foolish as some of them were against filibustering when the Dems had a majority. Now they are deifying the practice. :)

Lurker

[varwoche]

Originally posted by aerocontrols 4) In 1994, the Democratic majority launched a campaign ("Action, not Gridlock", they called it) to end the modern filibuster altogether. Good thing they failed, so far as I'm concerned.

The problem isn't the fact that both parties are willing to trash the system of checks and balances when it suits their intersts.

The problem is the fact that one party intends to carry out the threat, despite that it already controls all branches of government.

True though, the democratic party changed the fillibuster rules in recent history. At least it was over civil rights, as opposed to this pathetic hand-ringing over the stunningly routine fact that only 5% of the judicial appointments have been blocked.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by varwoche
The problem isn't the fact that both parties are willing to trash the system of checks and balances when it suits their intersts.

The filibuster rule has nothing to do with the system of checks and balances.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
The filibuster rule has nothing to do with the system of checks and balances. True. If I may rephrase:

The problem isn't the fact that both parties are willing to trash long-standing rules/precedent when it suits their intersts. The problem is the fact that one party intends to carry out the threat.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'll admit that I was going off of my shoddy memory rather than a reliable source of information.

(Is there an effective difference between not getting out of committee and filibustering or is it a technical difference? I'll plead ignorance here.)

Politicos call it pigeonholing...

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by varwoche
True. If I may rephrase:

The problem isn't the fact that both parties are willing to trash long-standing rules/precedent when it suits their intersts. The problem is the fact that one party intends to carry out the threat.

I'm sure that rephrase states your opinion much more accurately.

Your argument, then, is that the Democrats didn't intend to carry out their threat of ending the filibuster altogether in the 1990s?

Which party created Rule 22, allowing a supermajority to invoke cloture to end a filibuster?

Which party was it that abolished the Previous Question Motion, which created the ability to filibuster in the first place? (I actually don't know this one)

MattJ

[varwoche]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Your argument, then, is that the Democrats didn't intend to carry out their threat of ending the filibuster altogether in the 1990s? No.

My point is that to whatever extent the dems tried, they failed and it's past history. Since I have already acknowledged that both parties act in a self-serving way, I'm not clear why you are flogging this.

What is happening present tense is despite that the GOP already controls all branches of government, the majority leader is threatening to change the fillibuster rule for the trivial fact that the opposing party has blocked 5% of the judicial nominations. And he may have the votes to pull it off.

Call me conservative, but I don't like to see the majority party changing the rules. Your mileage may vary.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by varwoche
No.

My point is that to whatever extent the dems tried, they failed and it's past history. Since I have already acknowledged that both parties act in a self-serving way, I'm not clear why you are flogging this.

You mean that they failed in the 1990s. I'm flogging this because you seem to be recalling history in a self-serving way. It was the Democrats who succeeded in creating the "supermajority to invoke cloture". Of course, that's past history, too. If the fact that something is in the past consoles you, just wait 6 months and this will no longer be a big deal.

Originally posted by varwoche
What is happening present tense is despite that the GOP already controls all branches of government, the majority leader is threatening to change the fillibuster rule for the trivial fact that the opposing party has blocked 5% of the judicial nominations. And he may have the votes to pull it off.

Call me conservative, but I don't like to see the majority party changing the rules. Your mileage may vary.

Considering that I doubt you can find a single Senate that didn't change the rules, I would call your position extremely conservative. I would imagine that if the Democrats in the 1990s tried such a limited change to the filibuster rule, they could have pulled it off, too. If you want to be really consistent, you could pine for the olden days when there was no filibuster at all. But that would hardly serve your present purpose, I suppose.

MattJ

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
The filibuster rule has nothing to do with the system of checks and balances.
Actually, it sort of does. It's supposed to keep a party which has garnered only a narrow majority in the Senate from being able to pass luridly extremist law or, in this case, to confirm judicial nominees whose politics are feared to be an interference with their ability to objectively interpret the law with a facility not reflecting of the actual proportion of the senatorial body it makes up. When you're talking about issues so controversial that people are going to take measures comparably radical to fight them, you're going to want wide-ranging enough support for those issues to permit cloture.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Actually, it sort of does. It's supposed to keep a party which has garnered only a narrow majority in the Senate from being able to pass luridly extremist law or, in this case, to confirm judicial nominees whose politics are feared to be an interference with their ability to objectively interpret the law with a facility not reflecting of the actual proportion of the senatorial body it makes up. When you're talking about issues so controversial that people are going to take measures comparably radical to fight them, you're going to want wide-ranging enough support for those issues to permit cloture.

You've given a description of how the filibuster rule protects the minority party from majority decisions.

What we are discussing is something different. Whether one calls it 'checks and balances' or 'separation of powers', however, its got nothing to do with which party is in power, nor how extremist that party is, nor how controversial their positions are.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
You mean that they failed in the 1990s. I'm flogging this because you seem to be recalling history in a self-serving way. Correction. To the extent I am being self-serving, it is due to not remembering the event you are referencing. (In fact.) Since you consider it important, perhaps you could submit some evidence for readers to consider. (It would be interesting to know how real the effort was, and how/why it was blocked.)

Considering that I doubt you can find a single Senate that didn't change the rules, I would call your position extremely conservative. It seems like your primary argument is jumping to semantic extremes (save for your apt correction re checks & balances).

The rule change in the 60s was significant. The proposed rule change is significant.

If you're inclined to take the word significant to task, how about we segue to something useful: We could itemize the arguably significant changes over the past N years, and get some historical perspective. I'm game if you are.

I would imagine that if the Democrats in the 1990s tried such a limited change to the filibuster rule, they could have pulled it off, too.
What does it matter what you "imagine" that "if" they tried that they "could" have pulled off? That is at least one Kevin Bacon removed from even potential digestion.

I'm talking about something that is on the verge of actually happening, as opposed to something that you imagine could have happened if.
But that would hardly serve your present purpose, I suppose. Er, ok.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
You've given a description of how the filibuster rule protects the minority party from majority decisions.

What we are discussing is something different. Whether one calls it 'checks and balances' or 'separation of powers', however, its got nothing to do with which party is in power, nor how extremist that party is, nor how controversial their positions are.
While it may not be a part of the "System of Checks and Balances" proper, it is most certainly a peripheral agent of the same principles. So, in a manner, it would be inaccurate to say that it has "nothing to do" with it. But this is all just semantics, and I guess I kind of misinformed myself as to what you meant in your post by reading it out of context. Sorry about that.

Anyhow, it is in acknowledgment of my own explanation for the filibuster that I hold the conviction that it must be maintained no matter whether it is my or the opposing party in power.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by varwoche
Correction. To the extent I am being self-serving, it is due to not remembering the event you are referencing. (In fact.) Since you consider it important, perhaps you could submit some evidence for readers to consider. (It would be interesting to know how real the effort was, and how/why it was blocked.)

I think you're not following me. The Democratic effort to end the filibuster altogether in the 1990s failed. The Democratic effort to give other Senators the right to invoke cloture (thus enabling a supermajority to end a filibuster) in the 1910s succeeded. President Wilson got his war and the Peace Progressive filibuster ended.

Originally posted by varwoche
It seems like your primary argument is jumping to semantic extremes (save for your apt correction re checks & balances).

Perhaps so. Perhaps I'm just trying to figure out why you believe what you believe so strongly.

Originally posted by varwoche
The rule change in the 60s was significant. The proposed rule change is significant.

I've no idea what rule change in the 60s you're talking about. The most recent rule change I would consider significant was the Democrat's changing the size of the supermajority to call cloture from 67 votes to only 60. (They did this with a simple, unfilibusterable, majority vote as the Republicans apparently intend to do.) Certainly the proposed rule change is signficant.

Originally posted by varwoche
If you're inclined to take the word significant to task, how about we segue to something useful: We could itemize the arguably significant changes over the past N years, and get some historical perspective. I'm game if you are.

I can't judge the signficant of the 60s rule change you're talking about, since I've no idea what it is you refer to.

Originally posted by varwoche
What does it matter what you "imagine" that "if" they tried that they "could" have pulled off? That is at least one Kevin Bacon removed from even potential digestion.

I'm talking about something that is on the verge of actually happening, as opposed to something that you imagine could have happened if.

My point is that an effort to eliminate the filibuster entirely is a much more significant step than an effort to end filibusters only on presidential nominations, therefore the possibility that the Republicans might succeed shouldn't be surprising.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Anyhow, it is in acknowledgment of my own explanation for the filibuster that I hold the conviction that it must be maintained no matter whether it is my or the opposing party in power.

You mean it should be maintained as is? After hundreds of years we've hit upon the 'perfect' filibuster rule?

For what it's worth, I also hope the Republicans fail at changing the rule. I'm just bothered by some of the rhetoric in this thread.

I'm also aware of the somewhat convincing arguments used by BOTH SIDES in favor of getting rid of the filibuster. One of the major ones is that the primary method of breaking filibusters seems to have historically been expensive and wasteful government pork projects. It's those kinds of payoffs that the majority has historically used to get 67, or 60, or whatever they needed.

If the Republicans use the traditional method of breaking some of these judicial filibusters, it'll bother me more than if they change the rules instead. That is, under the traditional method, we'll get these extremist judges AND some expensive pork spending. On the other hand, maybe they won't be able to get 5 Democrats to switch their votes.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

In case anyone is wondering what motivation the Democrats might have had to change the cloture vote requirement from 67 votes to 60 votes in 1975, you might consider that the Democrats had just increased their majority from 56 to 61 that year.

Could have something to do with it...

Could be a coincidence...

[President Bush]

Originally posted by corplinx
Bill Frist and the gang have a lot to learn from Reagan/Gingrich. Small messages on big ideas, repeat repeat repeat. They are getting caught up in a spin war right now without a consistent message and are losing it badly.

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/americons/GeeDubbya/BushLaugh.jpg
I'm sure former Senate majority leader Trent Lott must feel real bad about this.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I think you're not following me. I'm trying. It seems the reverse from here, but isn't that always the case? The Democratic effort to end the filibuster altogether in the 1990s failed. The Democratic effort to give other Senators the right to invoke cloture (thus enabling a supermajority to end a filibuster) in the 1910s succeeded. Speaking of not following, I've specifically conceded -- twice -- that the democrats play the same game. One more: THE DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE IT TOO.

(I'd still like to know more about the effort in the 90's. Any links?)

I made an offer that we jointly array and analyze the arguably signicifant rule changes over the years. Not interested?

My point is that an effort to eliminate the filibuster entirely is a much more significant step than an effort to end filibusters only on presidential nominations Clearly. Though I don't see how the mere potential existence of a more significant change somehow renders the change at hand as not significant.

I suppose it depends on how much weight is given to factors such as supreme court composition. I give this a huge amount of weight.

the possibility that the Republicans might succeed shouldn't be surprising Who cares about surprise factor one way or the other? Not me.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
3) As far as I know, the GOP never filibustered any judicial nominations while Clinton was president, neither during the years when they held the majority nor when they held the minority. I'm aware that there were attempts by some Republicans to filibuster, but the Leadership wouldn't agree to support those efforts. Don't be a moron. The GOP senate blocked approximately 60 of Clinton's appointments from coming to an UP-OR-DOWN VOTE, simply by preventing them from ever getting a hearing in the first place. You're either being very disingenious by pretending one of these things is not at all like the other, or you're just bloody ignorant.

Source (http://mediamatters.org/items/200502180004).

And Source (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0512/p02s01-uspo.html).

[varwoche]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
The filibuster rule has nothing to do with the system of checks and balances. A small point aero... though I've conceded this point to you, it's a technicality. That is, the fillibuster rule -- in particular the context under which it is being discussed -- has bearing on the balance of power regardless that it's a rule made by the senate body for the senate body.

[hgc]

Let's face it, this argument really has nothing to do with the filibuster. It is a mere rule of engagement in a political body, and it can stay or go without regard to checks and balances, constitutionality, etc.

What this is really about is how the constitution and laws will be interpreted and enforced, and in particular, to whose benefit. The religious nature of the debate is also a distraction, albeit and important one. The real reason for the right's agenda in the judiciary is to shape the courts to protect moneyed interests first, foremost and always.

[Regnad Kcin]

Bingo, and bravo, hgc.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
Don't be a moron. The GOP senate blocked approximately 60 of Clinton's appointments from coming to an UP-OR-DOWN VOTE, simply by preventing them from ever getting a hearing in the first place. You're either being very disingenious by pretending one of these things is not at all like the other, or you're just bloody ignorant.

Source (http://mediamatters.org/items/200502180004).

And Source (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0512/p02s01-uspo.html).

I apologize for my level of moroninity, but I'll try to explain what I think the difference is.

I'm under this crazy impression that when the nation gives control of the Presidency and Senate to the same party, it becomes more difficult for the other party to block judicial nominations. The Republicans didn't have to filibuster because they controlled the Senate. If the Democrats get control of the Senate in 2006, they won't have to filibuster, either, because they'll be in control of the Senate rules. Likewise if they had captured it in 2004.

I rather think that one of the big reasons the Democrats lost ground in the Senate in 2004 was that they were blocking Bush's judicial nominees. It was certainly an issue used against Tom Daschle. But maybe it's just the moron in me that thinks that.

MattJ

[varwoche]

Perspectives of some GOP senators regarding Frist's "nuclear option"...
McCain: someday there will be a liberal Democrat president and a liberal Democrat Congress. Why? Because history shows it goes back and forth. I don't know if it's a hundred years from now, but it will happen. And do we want a bunch of liberal judges approved by the Senate of the United States with 51 votes if the Democrats are in the majority? article (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050415-105858-6978r.htm)
Snow: It's a major change. It's a transformational change to the institution.
article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/20/politics/20repubs.html)
Warner: I just look at this institution as really the last bastion of protecting the rights of the minority, and we should be very careful before we try and make any changes.article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/20/politics/20repubs.html)
Collins: I wish this would pass us by because I am concerned about the impact on the Senate of trying to put through a change that does not represent a consensus. article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/20/politics/20repubs.html)

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by varwoche
I'm trying. It seems the reverse from here, but isn't that always the case? Speaking of not following, I've specifically conceded -- twice -- that the democrats play the same game. One more: THE DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE IT TOO.

The difference between us is that you refer to this as a 'game' where anyone who plays is apparently wrong to do so. There is nothing at all wrong with the Senate leadership changing the Senate rules, and I find it odd that so many in this thread are willing to assert or imply that there is.

Originally posted by varwoche
(I'd still like to know more about the effort in the 90's. Any links?)

No, sorry. I'm working from my own recollections and limited references in current news stories.

Originally posted by varwoche
I made an offer that we jointly array and analyze the arguably signicifant rule changes over the years. Not interested?

Really, no. You are the one who believes that rule changes are wrong, or perhaps you believe that if rule changes are severe enough, they are wrong. I don't agree that if we perform all this work we will find anything of use to one who holds my position, rather than yours.

Originally posted by varwoche
Clearly. Though I don't see how the mere potential existence of a more significant change somehow renders the change at hand as not significant.

The point is that rule changes happen all the time. Big rule changes are hard, small rule changes are easy. If a party had a 99-seat advantage, they could change the rules however they liked. Of course, that 99-seat advantage would represent something of a mandate to do so.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
The difference between us is that you refer to this as a 'game' where anyone who plays is apparently wrong to do so. There is nothing at all wrong with the Senate leadership changing the Senate rules, and I find it odd that so many in this thread are willing to assert or imply that there is. We're back to semantics. You are reading more into the word game than I intended.

The problem I have with the nuclear option is in pretty much in synch with the quotes from GOP senators McCain, Snow, Warner, and Collins. While I do find some amusement in attempting to write sentences that are hard to tear apart even for someone with a keen eye for semantics, work duty calls. So I'm going to wimp out and simply say: What they said.

Incidentally, there well may be cases where the party in power changed the rules for perfectly justifiable reasons and not merely to amass power. I wonder if, and how frequently.

I don't agree that if we perform all this work we will find anything of use to one who holds my position, rather than yours. I've spent a full minute on this sentence and I surrender. Maybe you think the evidence will support your position, but you're not game for the effort, which I fully understand. Or maybe you think the evidence will not support your position, which I don't understand in light of your many statements about past rule changes.

The point is that rule changes happen all the time. Big rule changes are hard, small rule changes are easy. If a party had a 99-seat advantage, they could change the rules however they liked. Of course, that 99-seat advantage would represent something of a mandate to do so. So your argument is basically that if the party has amassed sufficient power to change the rules, then by definition the rule change is a trivial event?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by varwoche
Incidentally, there well may be cases where the party in power changed the rules for perfectly justifiable reasons and not merely to amass power. I wonder if, and how frequently.

This statement seems naive to me. Instead of wondering, I suppose you could research the issue.

Originally posted by varwoche
I've spent a full minute on this sentence and I surrender. Maybe you think the evidence will support your position, but you're not game for the effort, which I fully understand. Or maybe you think the evidence will not support your position, which I don't understand in light of your many statements about past rule changes.

As I said, the evidence will not be of use to anyone who holds my position. (That is, that there's nothing wrong with the Senate Leadership changing the rules of the Senate)

The purpose of your offer seems to be so we can discover which party is 'worse' at doing this. Or maybe to discover if this proposed rule change is 'worse' than previous rule changes. I can't see what use that would be to a person with my position, that changing the Senate rules is unlikely to be 'bad' in any case. If you want to try to show that changing the Senate Rules is bad, or bad sometimes, or something else, feel free. I refer you to the US Constitution, Article I, Section 5.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Originally posted by varwoche
So your argument is basically that if the party has amassed sufficient power to change the rules, then by definition the rule change is a trivial event?

No. Rule changes may be and often are significant. Some rule changes are more significant than others. That doesn't mean, therefore, that they have "trash[ed] the system of checks and balances" (or trashed anything else) It's my position that if there exists a majority vote to change the Senate Rules, then that majority has the authority to do so, whether I think the rule change is a good idea or not. Trivial change, drastic change, whichever. The point is that the more significant the change, the larger of a majority they will need, exactly because of the reason you point out - that moderates will balk.

MattJ