PDA

View Full Version : Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court Nomination



LA Ute
01-31-2017, 06:09 PM
We might as well have a separate thread for this as the confirmation drama unfolds.

For starters, a pro-Gorsuch article:

Neil Gorsuch: A Worthy Heir to Scalia
(http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444437/neil-gorsuch-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-textualist-originalist-heir)
Here's a Politico profile:

Neil Gorsuch: Who is he? Bio, facts, background and political views (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/who-is-neil-gorsuch-bio-facts-background-political-views-234437)

SCOTUSBlog summary:

Potential nominee profile: Neil Gorsuch (http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-neil-gorsuch/)

Devildog
01-31-2017, 06:22 PM
Great pick. The liberals are going to struggle to stop his appointment.

NorthwestUteFan
01-31-2017, 06:41 PM
I think Senators Hatch and McConnell are correct, and that we shouldn't let a lame duck president pick a SCOTUS nominee.

Sullyute
01-31-2017, 06:49 PM
I think Senators Hatch and McConnell are correct, and that we shouldn't let a lame duck president pick a SCOTUS nominee.

:clap:

LA Ute
01-31-2017, 06:50 PM
I think Senators Hatch and McConnell are correct, and that we shouldn't let a lame duck president pick a SCOTUS nominee.

The Repubs played hardball with the Merrick Garland nomination and they should expect the Dems to do the same now.

sancho
01-31-2017, 07:28 PM
The Repubs played hardball with the Merrick Garland nomination and they should expect the Dems to do the same now.

And so on and so on forever for all nominees and cabinet appointees. It's the new way of doing things.

Maybe we'll never appoint another supreme court justice, and one by one they will pass away until Clarence Thomas is the most powerful man in the USA and he finally has to say something during a case.

Diehard Ute
01-31-2017, 07:33 PM
And so on and so on forever for all nominees and cabinet appointees. It's the new way of doing things.

Maybe we'll never appoint another supreme court justice, and one by one they will pass away until Clarence Thomas is the most powerful man in the USA and he finally has to say something during a case.

He already did. Your plan has failed.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/29/468600863/after-a-decade-questions-emerge-from-the-quiet-justice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sancho
01-31-2017, 07:37 PM
He already did. Your plan has failed.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/29/468600863/after-a-decade-questions-emerge-from-the-quiet-justice


Well, it will be funnier if Justice Ginsberg is the last one left. She's so little, it would be cute.

NorthwestUteFan
01-31-2017, 08:19 PM
The Repubs played hardball with the Merrick Garland nomination and they should expect the Dems to do the same now.
The Republicans never had to pay for that little stunt. The crazy thing is they could have easily defeated Garland in a full vote, but they didn't even allow him to come up for debate, let alone a floor vote. One man, McConnell, refused to even let the nomination come out of committee.

But nothing will come of it, because Democrats never play hardball. They always cave in. Most of them will end up voting for this candidate anyway.

This nominee is a huge fan of Scalia. It will be interesting to know whether he is as scholarly and bookish as Scalia, and will even follow precedent and the Constitution to make decisions that he personally dislikes, as did Scalia.

And like Scalia, I am sure he will choose to follow his faith over following the Constitution in certain areas (esp. abortion, LGBT rights).

NorthwestUteFan
01-31-2017, 08:21 PM
And so on and so on forever for all nominees and cabinet appointees. It's the new way of doing things.

Maybe we'll never appoint another supreme court justice, and one by one they will pass away until Clarence Thomas is the most powerful man in the USA and he finally has to say something during a case.
Actually now Kennedy is the most powerful, because he is the potential swing vote.

LA Ute
01-31-2017, 09:29 PM
This NY Times op-ed by a liberal Obama administration lawyer will convince even NWUF that Gorsuch is the man.

Why Liberals Should Back Neil Gorsuch (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/why-liberals-should-back-neil-gorsuch.html?_r=1)

Scratch
01-31-2017, 10:06 PM
I think Senators Hatch and McConnell are correct, and that we shouldn't let a lame duck president pick a SCOTUS nominee.


So no second term president can nominate a Justice? That's crazy. I'm going to be happy with whoever we get, but I really don't like how the republicans handled this. It's not how the system is supposed to work.

sancho
01-31-2017, 10:30 PM
I am sure he will choose to follow his faith over following the Constitution in certain areas (esp. abortion, LGBT rights).

Yeah, totally went against all those amendments about abortion and lgbt rights.

Rocker Ute
02-01-2017, 05:24 AM
Most reviews I read speak highly of Gorsuch. I think this is a good nominee. Some people are wanting this to be a crazy uber right wing nomination and it isn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Applejack
02-01-2017, 05:43 AM
Most reviews I read speak highly of Gorsuch. I think this is a good nominee. Some people are wanting this to be a crazy uber right wing nomination and it isn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, he's as good as can be hoped for. I don't think the dems should play hardball. What the republicans did was stupid and petty; mud and pigs.

Diehard Ute
02-01-2017, 07:10 AM
Yeah, he's as good as can be hoped for. I don't think the dems should play hardball. What the republicans did was stupid and petty; mud and pigs.

And they've magically erased what they did from their own memories. It's beyond pathetic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sancho
02-01-2017, 07:15 AM
It's beyond pathetic.


It is beyond pathetic. It's politics.

Rocker Ute
02-01-2017, 07:49 AM
It is beyond pathetic. It's politics.

This. Both sides do this crap and then conveniently forget. Nothing... NOTHING has to do with principles any more.

mUUser
02-01-2017, 08:13 AM
Goruch is a slam dunk, but so was Garland. I fully expect the democrats to bork Goruch, and I'm not sure I blame them given the politics the republicans played with Garland. This is gonna be ugly.

Diehard Ute
02-01-2017, 08:18 AM
Goruch is a slam dunk, but so was Garland. I fully expect the democrats to bork Goruch, and I'm not sure I blame them given the politics the republicans played with Garland. This is gonna be ugly.

AP is reporting Republicans changed the rules today and passed the Treasury and Health secretaries out of committee

Democrats had boycotted the hearing as they wanted more time to ask questions. The rules required at least one democrat in the room but republicans changed that rule and passed the nominees.

Our country is being run by entitled asshats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sullyute
02-01-2017, 10:37 AM
Our country is being run by entitled asshats.

And we keep re-electing them, so what does that make us?

LA Ute
02-01-2017, 11:46 AM
Our country is being run by entitled asshats.

2114

Solon
02-01-2017, 12:30 PM
I recognize how naive this position is, but I am very bothered by the notion that Supreme Court justices always have their minds made up on key cases & issues that have yet to materialize.

Conservative Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren, after all, and the Warren Court was responsible for some of the most sweeping progressive court decisions in American history.

Gorsuch appears on paper to be qualified. So the guy is a some kind of strict constructionist. That isn't exactly the most damning criticism I can think of in a judge.

If the "liberals" (whatever that means anymore, and I probably fall more in this camp than the other) are so worried about what Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch would mean, I suggest they make better & stronger arguments, work to pass better & stronger laws, etc.

There is a system in place. It usually moves really slowly, but the overall arc of justice in the history of the US has been undeniably progressive in nature.

NorthwestUteFan
02-01-2017, 12:39 PM
Goruch is a slam dunk, but so was Garland. I fully expect the democrats to bork Goruch, and I'm not sure I blame them given the politics the republicans played with Garland. This is gonna be ugly.
Gorsuch will make it through, and he will be decent enough. I have issues with his support for Hobby Lobby, his apparent disdain for regulations including good ones (his mother was the head of EPA and tried to destroy it entirely), and his ruling that a cop who tased a teenaged kid in the head (against protocol, and resulted in the kid's death) was not excessive force. I hope the senators grill him deeply on the Citizen's United case and its impact on money in politics.

Gorsuch is a highly respectable judge with an impeccable resume. He will likely get elected without much of a fuss.

And for the record, what happened to Garland was significantly worse than what happened to Bork. Robert Bork made it out of committee, went through debate on the Senate floor, and the final vote was 42-58. Six Republicans voted against him. Bork's actions in the Nixon administration doomed him (especially since he was the person who carried out Nixon's illegal order and fired the independent investigator in the Saturday Night Massacre - according to his memoirs, Nixon promised him a SCOTUS nomination in exchange).

McConnell never even allowed the Judiciary committee to vote on Garland, and thus never even moved the conversation to the full Senate.

NorthwestUteFan
02-01-2017, 12:51 PM
If the "liberals" (whatever that means anymore, and I probably fall more in this camp than the other) are so worried about what Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch would mean, I suggest they make better & stronger arguments, work to pass better & stronger laws, etc.

There is a system in place. It usually moves really slowly, but the overall arc of justice in the history of the US has been undeniably progressive in nature.

I wish the people like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Bannon who have made the word 'liberal' into a four-letter word would spend some time in a decidedly illiberal, totalitarian nation.

NorthwestUteFan
02-01-2017, 12:52 PM
So no second term president can nominate a Justice? That's crazy. I'm going to be happy with whoever we get, but I really don't like how the republicans handled this. It's not how the system is supposed to work.
I didn't think it necessary to include the "/s"

Diehard Ute
02-01-2017, 01:21 PM
and his ruling that a cop who tased a teenaged kid in the head (against protocol, and resulted in the kid's death) was not excessive force.

So I've read several articles now and am curious on a couple of things.

1) What protocol are you citing? Is it merely the failure to warn someone they're going to be tased (that's the only protocol I've seen mentioned anywhere)

2) What are you contending was excessive?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LA Ute
02-01-2017, 02:26 PM
I wish the people like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Bannon who have made the word 'liberal' into a four-letter word would spend some time in a decidedly illiberal, totalitarian nation.

It worked, didn't it? You're all "progressives" now.

(I kid, I kid.)

Solon
02-01-2017, 03:14 PM
It worked, didn't it? You're all "progressives" now.

(I kid, I kid.)

I was at a question-and-answer session once for my university up in the SLC area, and a heckler-parent complained that we should teach "conservative arts" instead of "liberal arts."
I told this parent that maybe he needed to go back to college to learn what the term "liberal arts" meant. I laughed as I said it, but my eyes weren't laughing. He didn't even pretend to laugh. I"m guessing his kid didn't go to my school. Win-win!

Diehard Ute
02-01-2017, 03:25 PM
I was at a question-and-answer session once for my university up in the SLC area, and a heckler-parent complained that we should teach "conservative arts" instead of "liberal arts."
I told this parent that maybe he needed to go back to college to learn what the term "liberal arts" meant. I laughed as I said it, but my eyes weren't laughing. He didn't even pretend to laugh. I"m guessing his kid didn't go to my school. Win-win!

Guessing he's one of those fine folks who loves to call people "Libtards" these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LA Ute
02-01-2017, 11:06 PM
Politico:

What Could Gorsuch Mean for the Supreme Court?

13 top legal scholars weigh in.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-future-214724

LA Ute
02-02-2017, 06:29 AM
A very nuanced analysis of Gorsuch's judicial record.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/02/01/in-gorsuch-trump-gave-democrats-a-gift-they-should-take-it/?utm_campaign=buffer&utm_content=buffered41a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_term=.f5cfb34fb306

UTEopia
02-02-2017, 08:16 AM
The Repubs played hardball with the Merrick Garland nomination and they should expect the Dems to do the same now.

It is one thing to ask hard questions and another to attempt to block a vote. They won't do this, but the Dems should ask every question they deem necessary and then vote.

Diehard Ute
02-02-2017, 08:58 AM
It is one thing to ask hard questions and another to attempt to block a vote. They won't do this, but the Dems should ask every question they deem necessary and then vote.

Until the Republicans just change the rules because the democrats want to ask more questions.

McConnell's comments alone are enough to tell me the powers that be in the Republican Party only care about their party agenda.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LA Ute
02-02-2017, 09:13 AM
Until the Republicans just change the rules because the democrats want to ask more questions.

I'm calling BS on this one. The rule was that at least one member of each party needs to be present for a vote. The Democrats abused that rule by boycotting sessions, attempting to block a vote. That is a childish, anti-democratic maneuver. Republicans changed the rules so that if people refused to show up to vote, they don't get to vote. Sounds like democracy to me.

Diehard Ute
02-02-2017, 09:17 AM
I'm calling BS on this one. The rule was that at least one member of each party needs to be present for a vote. The Democrats abused that rule by boycotting sessions, attempting to block a vote. That is a childish, anti-democratic maneuver. Republicans changed the rules so that if people refused to show up to vote, they don't get to vote. Sounds like democracy to me.

You're hilarious LA. The democrats refused to come because the republicans refused to allow more questioning of the candidates. Isn't that childish?

Of course if we really want to get to childish we only need to look at the president set by your favored party don't we?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mUUser
02-02-2017, 09:50 AM
......Of course if we really want to get to childish we only need to look at the president set by your favored party don't we?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So this is where the discourse is now? "I know you are but what am I?".......sigh. I think these political threads have outlived their usefulness.

Diehard Ute
02-02-2017, 09:57 AM
So this is where the discourse is now? "I know you are but what am I?".......sigh. I think these political threads have outlived their usefulness.

No not at all.

But the fact that republicans are suddenly upset with childishness and undemocratic behavior is a bit funny isn't it?

I don't fall to any party, I tend to lean more left on some things but vote for candidates of both parties.

I truly believe the two party system in the US is the biggest problem we have with our political system and process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LA Ute
02-02-2017, 11:53 AM
You're hilarious LA. The democrats refused to come because the republicans refused to allow more questioning of the candidates. Isn't that childish?

Of course if we really want to get to childish we only need to look at the president set by your favored party don't we?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you are as non-partisan as you claim, you will acknowledge that the Democrats wanted to ask further questions only to continue a show in opposition to the EPA nominee. They did not have the right to ask more questions because they're not in the majority and got outvoted. That's legislation 101. So when they didn't get what they wanted, they decided to boycott the hearings in order to obstruct further action until they got their way. The party in the majority then changed the rules so that action can go forward without anyone from the opposing party present, as long as the opposing party members know the time and date of the hearing and intentionally decide not to show up. You called the Republicans asshats for doing that. To me it is just the rough and tumble of politics. Neither side is glorious in this situation. They're just doing the maneuvering involved in politics.

By the way, if you want to talk about precedent, Google "Reid rule" and "Biden rule" in the context of Senate confirmation of judicial nominees.

Rocker Ute
02-02-2017, 12:50 PM
Yeah, to pretend both sides don't do this stuff is to have your head in the ground. I think we all would agree that the public wishes these guys would just do their jobs and do what is best for the country and put partisanship to the side.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Devildog
02-02-2017, 07:31 PM
Yeah, to pretend both sides don't do this stuff is to have your head in the ground. I think we all would agree that the public wishes these guys would just do their jobs and do what is best for the country and put partisanship to the side.


If you think both sides do this equally... then you are crazier than a shit house rat. But, yeah, I wish they would do their damn job.

Rocker Ute
02-02-2017, 07:48 PM
...then you are crazier than a shit house rat...

I think that's your job, I would hate to encroach on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Devildog
02-02-2017, 07:50 PM
I think that's your job, I would hate to encroach on it.


You are so clever.

Rocker Ute
02-02-2017, 07:59 PM
You are so clever.

Flattery will get you everywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LA Ute
02-02-2017, 08:02 PM
"Lovers of law or sausage should never know how either one is made."

--Anonymous

Diehard Ute
02-02-2017, 08:25 PM
"Lovers of law or sausage should never know how either one is made."

--Anonymous

That's why I eat bacon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Devildog
02-02-2017, 08:36 PM
Flattery will get you everywhere.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vL3yiJMhFw

LA Ute
02-03-2017, 07:28 AM
Heh. Orrin Hatch trolls his late friend Ted Kennedy.


https://youtu.be/KBFD-KO9LYg

Devildog
02-03-2017, 08:27 AM
If you are as non-partisan as you claim,

And... LA nails it here. Rocker please admit to yourself that you are not nearly non-partisan.

Rocker Ute
02-03-2017, 08:37 AM
And... LA nails it here. Rocker please admit to yourself that you are not nearly non-partisan. You lean left as a fallen log.

He was responding to Diehard not me, but when did I claim to be non-partisan?

I've explained my political leanings (note that word) to you in the past. Best summed up that I am skeptical of most politicians and believe both parties have served themselves before country for, well, at least the majority of my lifetime. I also believe that Donald Trump is uniquely unqualified to be president. I haven't been proven wrong yet.

So you know, if anything I lean conservative despite being registered as a Democrat. I probably shouldn't be registered as a Democrat, but it was more of a response to local politics than nationally. In short, I thought that, all things considered, Jim Matheson did a hell of a job.

Devildog
02-03-2017, 08:44 AM
You have told me that you are more conservative than I am.

I think Trump is shaking and tearing things up in Washington. I love that. I believe we have been on the wrong course for a long time. I love what he is doing. I think the people that elected him feel similarly. You are not more conservative than I am. Relax because eventually the pendulum will swing back to the left. Not before some stupid ass leftist bullshit gets undone though.

Rocker Ute
02-03-2017, 08:54 AM
You have told me that you are more conservative than I am.

I think Trump is shaking and tearing things up in Washington. I love that. I believe we have been on the wrong course for a long time. I love what he is doing. I think the people that elected him feel similarly. You are not more conservative than I am. Relax because eventually the pendulum will swing back to the left. Not before some stupid ass leftist bullshit gets undone though.

I've never claimed to be more conservative than you, are you drinking again? I agree with being on the wrong course, but what Trump is doing isn't shaking and tearing things up, it is foolishness and destruction, from someone who barely tries to hide his corruption. Important distinction.

New York Steak and Eggs
02-03-2017, 09:15 AM
Why does it matter whether or not Rocker Ute considers himself conservative or not?

concerned
02-03-2017, 09:17 AM
Why does it matter whether or not Rocker Ute considers himself conservative or not?


Moose?

Rocker Ute
02-03-2017, 09:17 AM
Why does it matter whether or not Rocker Ute considers himself conservative or not?

Because we all want to know, Moose.

Devildog
02-03-2017, 09:19 AM
I've never claimed to be more conservative than you, are you drinking again? I agree with being on the wrong course, but what Trump is doing isn't shaking and tearing things up, it is foolishness and destruction, from someone who barely tries to hide his corruption. Important distinction.

Tearing it up is what he got elected to do. Oh and yes you have claimed to be more conservative than me.

New York Steak and Eggs
02-03-2017, 10:24 AM
Tearing it up is what he got elected to do. Oh and yes you have claimed to be more conservative than me.

Devildog, I'm more conservative than you are. I will make that claim with no reservations whatsoever.

Rocker Ute
02-03-2017, 10:31 AM
Tearing it up is what he got elected to do. Oh and yes you have claimed to be more conservative than me.

I did just install some high-efficiency windows in my basement, so you are right, I am really conservative. You are just sort of conservative. Sad.

U-Ute
02-03-2017, 12:44 PM
You have told me that you are more conservative than I am.

I think Trump is shaking and tearing things up in Washington. I love that. I believe we have been on the wrong course for a long time. I love what he is doing. I think the people that elected him feel similarly. You are not more conservative than I am. Relax because eventually the pendulum will swing back to the left. Not before some stupid ass leftist bullshit gets undone though.

Can you please define what the "right" course is? I genuinely want to know.

Let's start with Russia: How do you think we should handle them?

Rocker Ute
02-03-2017, 12:56 PM
Can you please define what the "right" course is? I genuinely want to know.

Let's start with Russia: How do you think we should handle them?

Just shake it up, U-Ute, that's what I want to see. Lots of non-specific or well-reasoned shaking.

Sullyute
02-03-2017, 01:06 PM
Just shake it up, U-Ute, that's what I want to see. Lots of non-specific or well-reasoned shaking.

:spittake: I actually snorted I laughed so hard at that.

pangloss
02-03-2017, 01:32 PM
My nephew clerked for Judge Babcock in the same district. I was hoping he could give me some observations (dirt) on Gorsuch, but he didn't know him.


nuts

U-Ute
02-03-2017, 01:48 PM
Just shake it up, U-Ute, that's what I want to see. Lots of non-specific or well-reasoned shaking.

That's quite subjective.

One person's "well reasoned shaking" is another person's "apocalypse". Can you give me an example of what you consider "well reasoned shaking"?

Rocker Ute
02-03-2017, 02:02 PM
That's quite subjective.

One person's "well reasoned shaking" is another person's "apocalypse". Can you give me an example of what you consider "well reasoned shaking"?

I can't really say, except if it involves more than 180 characters it probably isn't worth shaking.

U-Ute
02-03-2017, 02:13 PM
I can't really say, except if it involves more than 180 characters it probably isn't worth shaking.

Well, this may be one of those situations of you better be careful what you wish for. Before you know it, it will be your sacred cow being sacrificed on the altar of change and the same Trump that doesn't care he's stomping on other people won't care he's stomping on you.

Devildog
02-03-2017, 02:22 PM
:spittake: I actually snorted I laughed so hard at that. Sack swinging at it's finest Sully. Tarzan would be proud of your grip son.


That's quite subjective.

One person's "well reasoned shaking" is another person's "apocalypse".

You liberal crybaby's think this is what the apocalypse looks like? OK... hahhahaha. Trump is just getting started and little Rocker is already so upset.

Rocker Ute
02-03-2017, 02:27 PM
Sack swinging at it's finest Sully. Tarzan would be proud of your grip son.



You liberal crybaby's think this is what the apocalypse looks like? OK... hahhahaha. Trump is just getting started and little Rocker is already so upset.

So lets get back on topic here. What do you think of the Gorsuch pick? I think it is a good one.

Rocker Ute
02-03-2017, 02:34 PM
Well, this may be one of those situations of you better be careful what you wish for. Before you know it, it will be your sacred cow being sacrificed on the altar of change and the same Trump that doesn't care he's stomping on other people won't care he's stomping on you.

As long as it is shaking and tearing, I'm with Devildog...


2119

Rocker Ute
02-03-2017, 02:37 PM
Well, this may be one of those situations of you better be careful what you wish for. Before you know it, it will be your sacred cow being sacrificed on the altar of change and the same Trump that doesn't care he's stomping on other people won't care he's stomping on you.

I should also probably clarify. I meant to say "ill-reasoned shaking" but decided to go with it. There ain't much well-reasoned anything coming out of that hair.

Devildog
02-04-2017, 03:46 PM
As long as it is shaking and tearing, I'm with Devildog...


Trump continues to destroy Obama's politically correct Washington. I can see your tears Rocker, I'm sorry this hurts so much as conservative as you are... but it's going to be for the best. Just suck it up buttercup.

Rocker Ute
02-04-2017, 06:47 PM
Trump continues to destroy Obama's politically correct Washington. I can see your tears Rocker, I'm sorry this hurts so much as conservative as you are... but it's going to be for the best. Just suck it up buttercup.

I'm WITH you brother.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LA Ute
02-04-2017, 08:53 PM
Round Two for the Supreme Court?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444571/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominees

Devildog
02-04-2017, 09:09 PM
I'm WITH you brother.


Draining the damn swamp. Sorry, that it's so painful for you...but it's for the best.

LA Ute
02-05-2017, 10:34 AM
From the smart, balanced economics writer Megan McArdle:


I thought Republicans should have confirmed Garland, and I’ve written before that the arms race to procedurally hack the U.S. government — via controlling the Supreme Court, or dreaming up ever-more-arcane uses of the parliamentary rules — is bad for the country and needs to stop. That doesn’t mean I think it’s going to. The escalating tit-for-tat game over the Supreme Court has been going on at least since the 1980s, and arguably long before that, in the post-New-Deal era when courts began tilting noticeably leftwards. Under Reagan, conservatives sought to reverse that by grooming conservative justices for all levels of the courts. Democrats tried to keep them from doing so, culminating in the disgraceful treatment of Robert Bork. Ever since, we’ve been locked in a spiraling cycle of payback.

Everyone understands that this is destructive; everyone wishes it to stop. The catch is, they also believe that it needs to stop after they themselves get last licks in. And so it continues.

Thus I was unsurprised when Democrats began talking about a filibuster before they even knew who the nominee was. . . .

So I’m struggling to see what the point of this is, other than revenge. I do see why people want revenge. And revenge can play a useful role in politics, policing the worst excesses of the other side.

But there’s a reason that they say revenge is a dish best served cold. People who seek vengeance without stopping to count the potential costs to themselves often end up hurting their own side worse than the enemy. Democrats are already in an electorally vulnerable position, and facing a president who uniquely terrifies them. That’s probably a good time to stop, take a careful assessment of their tactical position, and imagine what battles they might need to hoard their ammunition for. Instead, they seem prepared to storm the barricades with all guns blazing. Unfortunately, the American system of justice, and perhaps even the Democrats themselves, are the ones most likely to be wounded by the engagement.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-02/liberals-will-not-like-how-this-revenge-plot-ends

Dwight Schr-Ute
02-06-2017, 09:19 PM
Ruh row.

828602739978596353


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sancho
02-06-2017, 10:27 PM
Ruh row.


I was part of a few bennion center groups at the u. I participated actively. I don't remember the names of the other student volunteers, and I'm sure they don't remember me.

LA Ute
02-06-2017, 10:57 PM
I was part of a few bennion center groups at the u. I participated actively. I don't remember the names of the other student volunteers, and I'm sure they don't remember me.

I kind of remember going to law school.

NorthwestUteFan
02-06-2017, 11:30 PM
Just get the confirmation over with already so we can put an asterisk by every 5-4 decision over the next few decades.

LA Ute
02-07-2017, 06:49 AM
Supreme Court fight over Gorsuch puts Schumer in a bind


Within hours of President Trump’s announcement that he nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, a conservative group launched a $7 million ad campaign aimed at pressuring politically vulnerable red-state Senate Democrats to vote for for nominee.

At the same moment, thousands of protesters swarmed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., Brooklyn apartment, some of them waiving plastic spines, demanding that Schumer and the Democrats hold firm and block Gorsuch from the high court.

Schumer, who is in his first term as Senate Democratic leader, is in a difficult political position as the Senate considers the nomination of Gorsuch, a highly respected jurist currently serving on the bench of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

With five vulnerable Democrats and eight more seats on the verge of being competitive in 2018, Schumer must find a way to satisfy the Democratic base by fighting the nomination without jeopardizing the re-election prospects of a big portion of his caucus who have to run for re-election in states that Trump won.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/supreme-court-fight-over-gorsuch-puts-schumer-in-a-bind/article/2613730

mUUser
02-07-2017, 08:47 AM
Ruh row.

828602739978596353


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mmmmm....that's not enough to cut it, but, keep digging.

LA Ute
02-07-2017, 01:50 PM
WSJ op-ed by a Yale Law prof:

For Moderate Democrats, Judge Gorsuch Is as Good as It Gets

Moderates could do a lot worse than Judge Neil Gorsuch—and we probably will if he isn’t confirmed. Donald Trump is clearly determined to nominate a judicial conservative to the Supreme Court. Elections have consequences, as Barack Obama once chided congressional Republicans.

Judge Gorsuch’s judicial philosophy isn’t mine. He believes that the Constitution’s meaning is fixed, that whatever the words signified in the era of the Founders is what they still express today. My view, which aligns more closely with that of Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, is that judges must respect the Constitution’s text and history but may also interpret them to fit the changing times.

But among judicial conservatives, Judge Gorsuch is as good as it possibly gets. I have known him personally for more than a decade, since he was an attorney in the Justice Department. He is a brilliant mind, but more important he is a kind, sensitive and caring human being. Judge Gorsuch tries very hard to get the law right. He is not an ideologue, not the kind to always rule in favor of businesses or against the government. Instead, he follows the law as best as he can wherever it might lead.


Judge Gorsuch has demonstrated in his rulings that he believes the judiciary has a sworn duty to protect individual liberties, even when they lack broad public support. Today Judge Gorsuch rules that Hobby Lobby cannot be forced to offer employees certain contraceptive coverage that violates its owners’ religious beliefs. (That ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court.) But tomorrow it could mean standing up for an unpopular minority group that liberals like better.

American history teaches that the controversy of the moment when a Supreme Court nominee is considered rarely becomes the defining issue of that justice’s career. The life of the country is unpredictable, and it would be a mistake to back a nominee simply for having the right political views on the cause célèbre du jour. More important is putting on the court someone like Neil Gorsuch—a good person with solid values—to decide, as the law requires, future controversies that we have yet to dream.

Democrats are still rightly upset that President Obama’s nominee for the vacancy, Judge Merrick Garland, was not given a hearing or a vote last year. Judge Garland is also a good man and a fine jurist, and he deserved better than to be treated like a political football. But retaliating now won’t right that wrong. It only will deepen the blood feud.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) had it exactly right: “I am still angry about Merrick Garland,” he was quoted by Real Clear Politics as saying. “But I believe that this nominee”—meaning Judge Gorsuch—“ought to have a hearing and a vote. We should not repeat the Republican wrong. Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

Then there is the practical political situation: Of the Democratic senators up for re-election in 2018, 10 represent states that Donald Trump carried. Blocking the president’s nominee could result in the defeat of some of them—and an even larger Republican majority for President Trump’s next potential Supreme Court nominee.

That battle will probably be more important. For years the court has been in rough balance, with four conservative justices, four liberal ones, and a swing vote cast by the relatively moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy. Confirming Judge Gorsuch to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia will not alter that balance, but Mr. Trump’s next nominee might.

The sensible route for moderate Democrats is clear: They should cross the aisle and join Republicans to cut off a filibuster, allowing an up-or-down vote by a simple majority on Judge Gorsuch. That will prevent Republicans from invoking the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules and abolish the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. One way or another, Judge Gorsuch is going to be confirmed. The question is how much damage will be done to the country first.

It has been Hatfields and McCoys in Washington for the past few years. No one has been trying to do the right thing anymore. The only goal seems to be getting even for the last outrage. This is an opportunity to break the cycle by coming together for the good of the country. The partisan wars started in 1987 with Judge Robert Bork; the time to end them is 2017 with Judge Gorsuch.


Mr. Elliott is an adjunct professor at Yale Law School.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-moderate-democrats-judge-gorsuch-is-as-good-as-gets-1486426119


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LA Ute
02-08-2017, 09:34 AM
A misguided attack on Neal Katyal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/08/a-misguided-attack-on-neal-katyal/?utm_term=.8525943e59f3

It's hard not to see this as a warning shot from ThinkProgeess to others that they'd better toe the line and not say good things about Gorsuch.

Two Utes
02-08-2017, 09:41 AM
A misguided attack on Neal Katyal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/08/a-misguided-attack-on-neal-katyal/?utm_term=.8525943e59f3

It's hard not to see this as a warning shot from ThinkProgeess to others that they'd better toe the line and not say good things about Gorsuch.

I appeared before Gorsuch at the 10th Circuit. He didn't like my argument at all. That's is fine. But he was a pompous asshole about it. Not a fan of his personality.

LA Ute
02-08-2017, 10:23 AM
I appeared before Gorsuch at the 10th Circuit. He didn't like my argument at all. That's is fine. But he was a pompous asshole about it. Not a fan of his personality.

I don't like it when judges behave that way. They are public servants, supposedly of the highest order.

Two Utes
02-08-2017, 11:41 AM
I don't like it when judges behave that way. They are public servants, supposedly of the highest order.


During the argument, I thought to myself, I've been around long enough now that I'm entitled to a little respect as well as you judge. I wish I had had the balls to say that. Dude's a douche bag.

LA Ute
03-20-2017, 07:39 AM
Worth a read:

Questions for Judge Gorsuch

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445896/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee-should-answer-these-questions-senate

Ma'ake
03-20-2017, 06:46 PM
With Trump having conducted three campaign appearances, including today in Kentucky, we're unquestionably in a presidential election.

And the last election was tainted by interference from a foreign power, a longtime adversary. Much of the facts are still being investigated, and will (presumably) come to light as the Congress Intelligence committees hold hearings.

Based on the most recent precedent, the least the Senate can do is give the American people a chance to indicate their feelings on the Gorsuch nomination in the voting booth, just a short year and 8 months away. If the Senate flips to Democratic control, that's an unambiguous sign Americans reject Trump, and by extension, Gorsuch.

If Gorsuch is confirmed, and ends up ruling on a case involving Trump and the Russians, we would see mass civil unrest.

Waiting on the Gorsuch nomination until after the elections next year is not an unreasonable demand, based on the recent past.

LA Ute
03-20-2017, 07:15 PM
From Judge Gorsuch's statement today:


Finally, there is Justice Jackson. He wrote clearly so everyone could understand his decisions. He never hid behind legal jargon. And while he was a famously fierce advocate for his clients as a lawyer, he reminded us that, when you become a judge, you fiercely defend only one client — the law…Of course, I make my share of mistakes. As my daughters never tire of reminding me, putting on a robe doesn’t make me any smarter. I’ll never forget my first day on the job. Carrying a pile of papers up steps to the bench, I tripped on my robe and everything just about went flying. But troublesome as it can be, the robe does mean something — and not just that I can hide coffee stains on my shirt. Putting on a robe reminds us that it’s time to lose our egos and open our minds. It serves, too, as a reminder of the modest station we judges are meant to occupy in a democracy. In other countries, judges wear scarlet, silk, and ermine. Here, we judges buy our own plain black robes. And I can report that the standard choir outfit at the local uniform supply store is a pretty good deal. Ours is a judiciary of honest black polyester.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNaOiDueFlM&feature=youtu.be

LA Ute
03-22-2017, 06:01 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hugh-hewitt-democrats-made-confirmation-easier-for-trump-nominees-the-gop-should-fix-that/2017/01/31/b6e0f532-e7f2-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.ef61ad02c409


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ma'ake
03-22-2017, 07:01 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hugh-hewitt-democrats-made-confirmation-easier-for-trump-nominees-the-gop-should-fix-that/2017/01/31/b6e0f532-e7f2-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.ef61ad02c409


The buildup of anger (deterioration of civility) that has characterized the past 20 years or so has reached a crescendo... maybe?

The Senate was supposed to be the august body of wisdom and statesmanship, less prone to the pressures and tensions of society. But the Senate's - and government in general's - ability to govern pre-supposes a pseudo-stable society, or at least one where people have hope their kids will have a better tomorrow.

For many, many Americans - Trumpistas and the currently dormant movement Sanders revealed - that's a huge assumption.

If the Genie is just partially out of the bottle... can we get it back in?

Deep fractures among Republicans, with a temperamental child in the White House, and Democrats biding their time to catch the energy of a rip tide of a still-angry electorate in 2018, make me think this is just one chapter in a very long book.

Rocker Ute
03-22-2017, 08:16 AM
I keep hearing people talking about a deeply fractured Republican Party but never the same is said about the Democrats. Is it because they are just a gooey mess?

Who are the vocal leaders right now even? Shumer and Pelosi? Sanders? Who is the up-and-coming contender for Trump? If there was ever an incumbent currently set up for a loss it has to be Trump right now.

I mean, they lost to Donald Trump and control of everything. This new dawn of enlightened politics they were claiming is further away.

Nobody is talking about the utter mess the dems are right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LA Ute
03-22-2017, 12:29 PM
I keep hearing people talking about a deeply fractured Republican Party but never the same is said about the Democrats. Is it because they are just a gooey mess?

Who are the vocal leaders right now even? Shumer and Pelosi? Sanders? Who is the up-and-coming contender for Trump? If there was ever an incumbent currently set up for a loss it has to be Trump right now.

I mean, they lost to Donald Trump and control of everything. This new dawn of enlightened politics they were claiming is further away.

Nobody is talking about the utter mess the dems are right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's one analysis, which I neither endorse nor disagree with:

http://www.nbcnews.com/specials/democrats-left-in-the-lurch

LA Ute
03-25-2017, 08:41 AM
And unusual moment of levity.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/sen-sasse-says-us-stands-in-awe-of-judge-gorsuchs-bladder/2017/03/21/6256ea16-0e77-11e7-aa57-2ca1b05c41b8_video.html

mUUser
03-25-2017, 01:50 PM
"After careful deliberation, I have concluded that I cannot support Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court," -- Chuck Schumer

LOL.....Schumer is a tool, a liar, a farce and a disgrace to the United States Senate. He may not support Gorsuch, but let's not kid ourselves.....it was NOT after careful deliberation. Gorsuch has impeccable credentials, is brilliant, follows the law, and passes the temperament test with flying colors. In short, he killed it. Schumer......a complete buffoon running his own kabuki theater.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/23/chuck-schumer-democrats-filibuster-gorsuch-supreme-court/22008988/

LA Ute
03-25-2017, 03:43 PM
Al Hunt (a serious liberal) pinpoints the real reason the Dems are opposing Gorsuch: They don't want to face a primary opponent. Seems the Democrats have their own version of the Tea Party.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-24/democrats-have-a-gorsuch-problem

LA Ute
04-04-2017, 07:42 AM
And to think that just a few years ago, I was constantly hearing that the filibuster is outdated, undemocratic, and probably racist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ma'ake
04-04-2017, 09:49 AM
I'm coming around on the Filibuster. Most Americans probably have no idea what it is, and it defies the simple "majority rules" mindset we have.

Get rid of it. It's almost as anachronistic as the Electoral College.

If McConnell won't get rid of it now, it would certainly come up again with the next nominee, whether that's another Trump selection or whoever the next President is (assuming there is a next President).

The Filibuster is from a different era. I don't see any way we're going back to that time.

LA Ute
04-04-2017, 11:13 AM
I'm coming around on the Filibuster. Most Americans probably have no idea what it is, and it defies the simple "majority rules" mindset we have.

Get rid of it. It's almost as anachronistic as the Electoral College.

If McConnell won't get rid of it now, it would certainly come up again with the next nominee, whether that's another Trump selection or whoever the next President is (assuming there is a next President).

The Filibuster is from a different era. I don't see any way we're going back to that time.

It is what we might call "extra-constitutional," meaning it is not mentioned there at all. I think it was in the 1970s that an extra "track" was added, so that instead of stopping everything the Senate is doing (see "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"), the filibuster means that legislation being filibustered is simply set aside while the Senate moves on to other things. The result is that you need a super-majority to get certain things passed, even though the Constitution requires a super-majority only for very specific things. Right now it's causing problems for the Republicans, but it will cause problems for the Democrats someday too. It should be abolished, or maybe we should just go back to the one-track system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ma'ake
04-04-2017, 11:49 AM
It is what we might call "extra-constitutional," meaning it is not mentioned there at all. I think it was in the 1970s that an extra "track" was added, so that instead of stopping everything the Senate is doing (see "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"), the filibuster means that legislation being filibustered is simply set aside while the Senate moves on to other things. The result is that you need a super-majority to get certain things passed, even though the Constitution requires a super-majority only for very specific things. Right now it's causing problems for the Republicans, but it will cause problems for the Democrats someday too. It should be abolished, or maybe we should just go back to the one-track system.

I remember learning from J.D. Williams that the Filibuster was a moderating instrument. Even the minority could exert influence on things coming through the Senate, causing the majority, and / or the House and the Executive to compromise (apologies for using French here).

It was a different time...

Rocker Ute
04-04-2017, 01:30 PM
So I think it is a stretch to call Gorsuch an objectionable nomination. The question is why would the democrats risk the nuclear option when they'll likely need it for another nominee in the future.

This seems like a poor strategy on the left's part.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

U-Ute
04-04-2017, 04:43 PM
I'm coming around on the Filibuster. Most Americans probably have no idea what it is, and it defies the simple "majority rules" mindset we have.

Get rid of it. It's almost as anachronistic as the Electoral College.

If McConnell won't get rid of it now, it would certainly come up again with the next nominee, whether that's another Trump selection or whoever the next President is (assuming there is a next President).

The Filibuster is from a different era. I don't see any way we're going back to that time.

The Progressive Case Against Filibustering Gorsuch (http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/4/4/15168316/filibuster-gorsuch-senate-nuclear-mistake)

LA Ute
04-06-2017, 05:57 PM
2180

Ma'ake
04-06-2017, 09:23 PM
So I think it is a stretch to call Gorsuch an objectionable nomination. The question is why would the democrats risk the nuclear option when they'll likely need it for another nominee in the future.

This seems like a poor strategy on the left's part.


The Dems are working hard to take back the Senate in 2018, maybe 2020, which makes it easy to stonewall any new Trump appointees, ala the McConnell stonewall on Garland. Having the drama of a rules debate out of the way now, the confirmation vote can be quick and emphatic. Goes thru committee on whatever vote, goes to Senate, a debate could occur in a few hours, vote up or down, "Tell Trump to try again!" Nice, quick, clean, fast... government efficiency on steroids. Opposing presidents would need a bullpen of candidates.

If Dems have the WH and the Senate, the challenge will be how fast to get pick #1 through will minimal discussion, and possibly use that nifty Rule 19 to squelch any opposers who get frustrated and make a misstep in complaining, ala Elizabeth Warren.

tooblue
04-07-2017, 07:25 AM
The Dems are working hard to take back the Senate in 2018, maybe 2020, which makes it easy to stonewall any new Trump appointees, ala the McConnell stonewall on Garland. Having the drama of a rules debate out of the way now, the confirmation vote can be quick and emphatic. Goes thru committee on whatever vote, goes to Senate, a debate could occur in a few hours, vote up or down, "Tell Trump to try again!" Nice, quick, clean, fast... government efficiency on steroids. Opposing presidents would need a bullpen of candidates.

If Dems have the WH and the Senate, the challenge will be how fast to get pick #1 through will minimal discussion, and possibly use that nifty Rule 19 to squelch any opposers who get frustrated and make a misstep in complaining, ala Elizabeth Warren.

It's a dangerous misstep by still flailing democrats based on presumptions. What happens 'if' they don't take back anything? We only need to look as far back as their presumptive nominee and how well that went for them, to know how easy it is to predict the future.

At some point, Trump will likely find a way to steady the ship. In fact, you could argue that has begun to happen with the ousting of Bannon, to whom he basically said: "You're fired." Trump is who he is. He was a moderate and democrat first, as was/is his son in-law and daughter, before they became born again republicans. Trumps lean right was a brilliant calculation that got him elected.

Also, the more news media and late night comedians go after him, the more he becomes entrenched as the under dog; the punchline that defied all odds and ended up, improbably, on top when confronted with his "one shining moment." His underdog status will always play well with the silent majority of "independent" US voters. Those that turned their nose's away from the stench of his behavior and voted for him. The same people he won't hesitate to fleece.

How many more justices will Trump need to replace is the real question? I'm happy with the Gorsuch nomination. He will be a brilliant addition to the Supreme Court. The Dems and liberals just don't seem to get it. You can't mercilessly mock and continue to condescend without their being consequences. Trump is that consequence, and his influence won't be fleeting.

mUUser
06-28-2018, 04:47 AM
Justice Kennedy retires......

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46350849&nid=157&title=justice-kennedy-retiring-giving-trump-pivotal-court-pick

Ma'ake
06-28-2018, 09:20 AM
At some point, Trump will likely find a way to steady the ship. In fact, you could argue that has begun to happen with the ousting of Bannon, to whom he basically said: "You're fired." Trump is who he is. He was a moderate and democrat first, as was/is his son in-law and daughter, before they became born again republicans. Trumps lean right was a brilliant calculation that got him elected.

Also, the more news media and late night comedians go after him, the more he becomes entrenched as the under dog; the punchline that defied all odds and ended up, improbably, on top when confronted with his "one shining moment." His underdog status will always play well with the silent majority of "independent" US voters. Those that turned their nose's away from the stench of his behavior and voted for him. The same people he won't hesitate to fleece.

How many more justices will Trump need to replace is the real question? I'm happy with the Gorsuch nomination. He will be a brilliant addition to the Supreme Court. The Dems and liberals just don't seem to get it. You can't mercilessly mock and continue to condescend without their being consequences. Trump is that consequence, and his influence won't be fleeting.

mUUser's post prompted me to re-read your post.

Wow, how much has changed in a year - Bannon's gone but Trump's carrying his message to Europe, Alt-Right ideas are manifested by Trump's proposal to cut legal immigration in half, Miller is ascendant, the GOP has unquestionably become the POT, with free trade, fiscal responsibility and immigration all dramatically changed issues for people who previously were Republicans.

At the same time, the anti-Trump dynamic has intensified, and things look "murky". If Trump successfully makes Maxine Waters the poster child for anyone who opposes him...

… football season is coming up!

LA Ute
06-28-2018, 09:44 AM
At the same time, the anti-Trump dynamic has intensified, and things look "murky". If Trump successfully makes Maxine Waters the poster child for anyone who opposes him...

… football season is coming up!

I agree that Trump hatred has intensified, but his approval rating keeps creeping up, slowly but surely. There's a ceiling to that, but I wonder how many "shy Tories" are being polled -- people who like what he's doing but won't admit it? People seem willing to separate the man's personal behavior from the results he gets -- i.e., the economy. Kind of like Bill Clinton, whose approval ratings were just fine during all his personal behavior troubles.

Anyway, serious, often visceral and unreasoning Trump hatred on the left getting worse -- and the Dems generally running to the left; plus serious Trump hero-worship among many on the other end of the spectrum, and a bunch of ambivalent people in the middle who find him repugnant but kind of like how things are going. Weird mix. Who knows what will happen? Not much good, I think.

Maxine Waters has been saying crazy things for decades. Nobody really cares.

Ma'ake
06-28-2018, 10:17 AM
Maxine Waters has been saying crazy things for decades. Nobody really cares.

I agree. I think she's a terrible example, and a prime opportunity for Trump to (subliminally) drive the wedge deeper against immigrants & minorities. ("Hey Mia - you're in the wrong party, dear.")

For Democrats - and for the nation, really - I think it would be good if somebody stepped up and punched the bully in the nose. But this bully has the principal and the school board in his back-pocket, and half the school in his corner. Maybe the young Ms. Cortez, who just beat the 10 term Democrat House leader Joe Cowley... but that's a lot to ask of a 28 year old.

mUUser
06-28-2018, 01:01 PM
…….and the Dems generally running to the left......


Here's a recent poll concerning Dems that may run in 2020. Needless to say, far, far, far left....Why won't any of the "Joe's" step up? If this is what we get in 2020 I'll be writing in my vote again. I'm thinking Condoleezza Rice this time around.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/06/27/democrat-2020-field-poll/740370002/

sancho
06-28-2018, 02:23 PM
Here's a recent poll concerning Dems that may run in 2020. Needless to say, far, far, far left....Why won't any of the "Joe's" step up? If this is what we get in 2020 I'll be writing in my vote again. I'm thinking Condoleezza Rice this time around.


Join me in voting for Alex Smith again. Not only is he cool and a Ute, he'd be a better president than anyone on the ballot.

mUUser
06-28-2018, 02:35 PM
Join me in voting for Alex Smith again. Not only is he cool and a Ute, he'd be a better president than anyone on the ballot.


Done.