Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 67891011 LastLast
Results 271 to 300 of 312

Thread: Brett Kavenaugh Supreme Court Nomination

  1. #271
    Quote Originally Posted by Irving Washington View Post
    Here's a good editorial by David Brooks. I'm not sure it adds anything new, but he describes it well.
    Everyone comes out of this badly.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/o...e=sectionfront
    Much truth in Brooks' description.

    A colleague - in the Brooks mold, always looking to detoxify - was on vacation & off the grid after Kavanaugh's first round. "I was OK with Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS. Follow the Constitution"... until he saw Kavanaugh's second testimony.

    "That guy shouldn't be a judge at *any* level. He undermines credibility in the SCOTUS, and maybe more broadly in other courts, certainly adds a shadow of doubt to Trump appointees. We're in serious trouble as a nation."

    (Vacation Zen evaporated immediately.)

    Maybe Kavanaugh had to "fight fire with fire", or whatever... but the tribalism has unquestionably been amplified.

  2. #272

    Brett Kavenaugh Supreme Court Nomination

    Regarding Kavanaugh's decorum and professional conduct we have a whole history of him being a judge and there is no indication that he ever acted inappropriately, emotionally or unfairly, in fact quite the opposite.

    My opinion is that one impassioned outburst in the face of horrible accusations delivered by a political hatchet job does not a man make. Plus I've noticed the opinion on his angry outburst falls completely along political lines as well. Did I cringe and did it give me serious pause? Yes. Is it being exaggerated now by the left? Totally.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #273

  4. #274
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    Regarding Kavanaugh's decorum and professional conduct we have a whole history of him being a judge and there is no indication that he ever acted inappropriately, emotionally or unfairly, in fact quite the opposite.

    My opinion is that one impassioned outburst in the face of horrible accusations delivered by a political hatchet job does not a man make. Plus I've noticed the opinion on his angry outburst falls completely along political lines as well. Did I cringe and did it give me serious pause? Yes. Is it being exaggerated now by the left? Totally.
    Apparently it was more than hysterical lefties reacting.

    DC circuit judges were alarmed enough about Kavanaugh's testimony to send complaints to John Roberts. https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...nl_most&wpmm=1

    I don't think the Brett Kavanaugh chapter in a future book about American history is over. God help us. We're going to need it.

  5. #275
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,702

    Brett Kavenaugh Supreme Court Nomination

    Quote Originally Posted by Ma'ake View Post
    Apparently it was more than hysterical lefties reacting.

    DC circuit judges were alarmed enough about Kavanaugh's testimony to send complaints to John Roberts. https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...nl_most&wpmm=1

    I don't think the Brett Kavanaugh chapter in a future book about American history is over. God help us. We're going to need it.
    “The complaints do not pertain to any conduct in which Judge Kavanaugh engaged as a judge. The complaints seek investigations only of the public statements he has made as a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
    By every single account, his conduct as a judge during his 12 years on the bench has been impeccable. All those who have appeared in front of him say so, all of his clerks say so, and all Circuit Court judges who have deliberated with him and have signed opinions with him say so.

    So what do we have? The man was accused, after the hearings were over, of sexual assault 36 years ago when he was 17 years old. The accusation arose under questionable circumstances (Senator Feinstein‘s sitting on it until an opportune time for a Hail Mary attempt to stop the nomination). The accusation was absolutely uncorroborated, and was surrounded by uncertainty and multiple questions and factual gaps.

    A similarly uncorroborated and spurious accusation of him having exposed himself then arose, and was reported by the news media as if it were factual.

    Then the gang rape accusation came up. Again, this was reported as if it were serious, even though the New York Times refused to report on it because they could not confirm it in any manner. And yet this was reported by the other news media as well, and the accuser (who has since been exposed as a bit of a nut case) got time on a national NBC news broadcast.

    Then of course, the Democratic Senators started quizzing him about language in his high school yearbook.

    So yes, he was angry and emotional when he appeared before the Senate to defend himself against these horrific and unsubstantiated charges. It is completely understandable that he felt that way and expressed himself that way. Can anyone here tell the rest of us that he or she would’ve been calm and cerebral in such a situation? I will guarantee you, no action will ever be taken against him for his demeanor in front of the Senate on that occasion. The other judges who complained about him to the leaders of their group are, I will bet anything, Democratic appointees who were Democratic activists before they made those complaints. Otherwise, they broke down pretty much the way the general population is breaking down: along partisan lines. Democrats and liberals believe the accusers, believe Cavanaugh is guilty, and are very upset about his demeanor during the hearings. Republicans and conservatives feel the opposite way. There is nothing remarkable about those circuit judges expressing their concerns.

    My blood pressure is now returning to normal. 😉
    Last edited by LA Ute; 10-07-2018 at 03:05 PM.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  6. #276

    Brett Kavenaugh Supreme Court Nomination

    Quote Originally Posted by Ma'ake View Post
    Apparently it was more than hysterical lefties reacting.

    DC circuit judges were alarmed enough about Kavanaugh's testimony to send complaints to John Roberts. https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...nl_most&wpmm=1

    I don't think the Brett Kavanaugh chapter in a future book about American history is over. God help us. We're going to need it.
    According to the article you cited, it wasn't the circuit court judges who were concerned about his conduct who filed the complaints (anybody can file a complaint and it was the public who had done so) rather they were rightfully sent to the Justice Roberts because they didn't feel their court could handle them appropriately it.

    They can't appropriately handle them because the conduct didn't happen in their courts but with the Senate as a Supreme Court nominee and now Supreme Court Justice.

    Yes, this whole thing is hysterics from both sides.

    This is a rare occasion, but I agree with LA Ute on this, his conduct as a judge has been impeccable and the most reliable indicator of his judicial demeanor and ability to serve. Doesn't matter now what we think anyway, it is done.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Rocker Ute; 10-07-2018 at 02:57 PM.

  7. #277
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,702

    Brett Kavenaugh Supreme Court Nomination

    It might’ve helped the Democrats out half-day could’ve brought them selves to denounce what Avenatti was doing:

    Attorney Michael Avenatti stymied Democrats’ attempts to derail confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, Democratic senators and aides told CNN.

    “Democrats and the country would have been better off if Mr. Avenatti spent his time on his Iowa vanity project rather than meddling in Supreme Court fights,” a top Democratic Senate aide told CNN ahead of Saturday’s vote to confirm Kavanaugh.

    “His involvement set us back, absolutely,” said the aide, referring to Avenatti’s fledgling 2020 presidential campaign.

    Avenatti, who represents porn star Stormy Daniels, entered the Kavanaugh foray as an attorney for Julie Swetnick, a Washington, D.C. woman who claimed that Kavanaugh was present at house parties in the early 1980s were girls were gang raped.

    Avenatti pushed Swetnick’s case at his cable TV mainstays, CNN and MSNBC, but ultimately failed to produce the witnesses he claimed would come forward to support his client’s case. . . .

    While Kavanaugh appeared on the ropes after Ford’s story emerged, conservatives rallied around him in response to the Swetnick allegations.

    Asked about Avenatti’s involvement in the Kavanaugh case, Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, suggested that the attorney distracted from Democrats’ mission to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

    “Well you know at some point there were a lot of folks coming forward making all sorts of accusations,” Peters told CNN. “It turns it into a circus atmosphere and certainly that’s not where we should be.”
    http://dailycallernewsfoundation.org...nst-kavanaugh/

    But nobody came forward and denounced him, so they’re in a poor position to complain about him now.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  8. #278
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    It might’ve helped the Democrats out half-day could’ve brought them selves to denounce what Avenatti was doing:



    http://dailycallernewsfoundation.org...nst-kavanaugh/

    But nobody came forward and denounced him, so they’re in a poor position to complain about him now.
    Just won't let it go.

  9. #279
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Irving Washington View Post
    Just won't let it go.
    I had to respond to that commie Ma’ake. 😁

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  10. #280
    Administrator U-Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    5,269
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I had to respond to that commie Ma’ake. 
    That's fine. But with the Daily Caller? You're better than that.

  11. #281
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,702
    Quote Originally Posted by U-Ute View Post
    That's fine. But with the Daily Caller? You're better than that.
    But that article was linking and quoting CNN, the source of truth!

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/polit...ion/index.html

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  12. #282
    Administrator U-Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    5,269
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    But that article was linking and quoting CNN, the source of truth!

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/polit...ion/index.html
    One of the few times you'll find some truth on that site.

  13. #283
    An interesting factoid I saw the other day: of the five conservative justices on the Court, four were appointed by presidents who lost the popular election. The senators who voted to terminate debate and vote on Kavanaugh represent tens of million fewer voters than those voting against.
    For better or worse, (it's both, depending upon the issue,) we're a republic rather than a democracy.

  14. #284
    Quote Originally Posted by Irving Washington View Post
    An interesting factoid I saw the other day: of the five conservative justices on the Court, four were appointed by presidents who lost the popular election. The senators who voted to terminate debate and vote on Kavanaugh represent tens of million fewer voters than those voting against.
    For better or worse, (it's both, depending upon the issue,) we're a republic rather than a democracy.
    Actually not exactly true. Roberts and Alito were nominated in July and October of 2005, after the second election which Bush did win the popular vote over John Kerry.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #285
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    Actually not exactly true. Roberts and Alito were nominated in July and October of 2005, after the second election which Bush did win the popular vote over John Kerry.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I'd say it's definitely not true, not just not exactly true. I did it again.

  16. #286
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Irving Washington View Post
    An interesting factoid I saw the other day: of the five conservative justices on the Court, four were appointed by presidents who lost the popular election. The senators who voted to terminate debate and vote on Kavanaugh represent tens of million fewer voters than those voting against.
    For better or worse, (it's both, depending upon the issue) we're a republic rather than a democracy.
    Yep. Them’s the rules. We’ve been that way since 1788. I do think its important to remember that as a result, everyone who seriously runs for president tries to win in the Electoral College, not in the popular vote. So it seems a little hollow to me when election losers complain about the Electoral College when they knew the rules going in.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  17. #287
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    Yep. Them’s the rules. We’ve been that way since 1788. I do think its important to remember that as a result, everyone who seriously runs for president tries to win in the Electoral College, not in the popular vote. So it seems a little hollow to me when election losers complain about the Electoral College when they knew the rules going in.
    The only good thing about the electoral college is that when you live in a state like Utah you're not inundated with presidential election ads.

  18. #288
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Irving Washington View Post
    The only good thing about the electoral college is that when you live in a state like Utah you're not inundated with presidential election ads.
    Well... another good thing is that it prevents each president from being elected by New York, California, Texas, Florida and Illinois.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  19. #289
    Administrator U-Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    5,269

  20. #290
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    Well... another good thing is that it prevents each president from being elected by New York, California, Texas, Florida and Illinois.
    yeah, so now we just let Ohio and Florida choose! Much better!

  21. #291
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    yeah, so now we just let Ohio and Florida choose! Much better!
    I left them off the list. So sue me!

    Besides:

    missedthepoint.jpg

    I note this with love in my heart.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  22. #292
    Administrator U-Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    5,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    yeah, so now we just let Ohio and Florida choose! Much better!
    Florida: the land of good life choices.

  23. #293
    I don't want to get into a ideal political structure argument on a Ute-centered weblog, but the electoral college is an anachronistic relic of the past. You can make all sorts of justifications for its continued existence, but the fact is it has the obvious effect of discounting completely most votes in the US (our two votes are among the most worthless). For the majority of citizens, there is no reason to go to the polls (at least for presidential elections); this cannot have been the founder's intent.

    Simply counting every vote equally has the advantage of (a) counting every vote equally and (b) that's it; there doesn't need to be a better justification than this. Why should we privilege the 1.3 million voters of New Hampshire more than the 28.3 million of texas? Wouldn't it be better to have a one-person, one-vote scheme? A hypothetical candidate may energize the senior citizens of Texas, or the youth of California, or a sub-population in New York in such a way that it might result in 1 or 2 million votes that the previous candidate wouldn't have secured; but under an electoral college system those are essentially null votes. It would simply mean that he won the state by more, or lost it by less than expected; which is worth nothing in an electoral college system.

    This is not a partisan argument, btw. Everyone should want this; it tempers some of the craziness of both parties.

  24. #294
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    I don't want to get into a ideal political structure argument on a Ute-centered weblog, but the electoral college is an anachronistic relic of the past. You can make all sorts of justifications for its continued existence, but the fact is it has the obvious effect of discounting completely most votes in the US (our two votes are among the most worthless). For the majority of citizens, there is no reason to go to the polls (at least for presidential elections); this cannot have been the founder's intent.

    Simply counting every vote equally has the advantage of (a) counting every vote equally and (b) that's it; there doesn't need to be a better justification than this. Why should we privilege the 1.3 million voters of New Hampshire more than the 28.3 million of texas? Wouldn't it be better to have a one-person, one-vote scheme? A hypothetical candidate may energize the senior citizens of Texas, or the youth of California, or a sub-population in New York in such a way that it might result in 1 or 2 million votes that the previous candidate wouldn't have secured; but under an electoral college system those are essentially null votes. It would simply mean that he won the state by more, or lost it by less than expected; which is worth nothing in an electoral college system.

    This is not a partisan argument, btw. Everyone should want this; it tempers some of the craziness of both parties.
    I think there are strong arguments on both sides, and yours here are legit. The opposing argument that is most persuasive to me is that with a popular vote system for electing the POTUS, smaller states would become invisible to presidential candidates, and maybe to presidents. (Mind you, I’m a Californian, where 1 in 10 Americans live.) Anyway, I don’t see any proposal to change things getting the 2/3 vote in Congress or 3/4 vote among the states (38 states).

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  25. #295
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    smaller states would become invisible to presidential candidates
    I thought the small states were currently invisible to candidates? Or, more importantly, only swing states are visible to candidates. If you are not in a swing state, the candidate might not even campaign or air ads in your state. I think AJ's right on this one.

    I haven't voted seriously in a presidential election in my lifetime. I've never had a vote that would count. This has allowed me to vote for people like Alex Smith, which is a silver lining.

  26. #296
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    I thought the small states were currently invisible to candidates? Or, more importantly, only swing states are visible to candidates. If you are not in a swing state, the candidate might not even campaign or air ads in your state. I think AJ's right on this one.

    I haven't voted seriously in a presidential election in my lifetime. I've never had a vote that would count. This has allowed me to vote for people like Alex Smith, which is a silver lining.
    Yeah, I have no empirical evidence to back me up, but I think the electoral system discourages voters. Except in a handful of states that know the choice of president is theirs to make (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania).

    I mean where I live something like 96% voted for Hillary (p.s. I love DC). But I can't help but think some republicans didn't bother to show up because they knew it was a foregone conclusion who would get DC's paltry amount of electoral votes. With a straight vote system I tend to think those same republicans might have showed up knowing that the race was close.

  27. #297
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I think there are strong arguments on both sides, and yours here are legit. The opposing argument that is most persuasive to me is that with a popular vote system for electing the POTUS, smaller states would become invisible to presidential candidates, and maybe to presidents. (Mind you, I’m a Californian, where 1 in 10 Americans live.) Anyway, I don’t see any proposal to change things getting the 2/3 vote in Congress or 3/4 vote among the states (38 states).
    yeah, I agree with Sancho on this one. First, why shouldn't smaller population states have proportionally less of a say about who their leader should be than populous states? Second, that skewing towards smaller states doesn't strike me as a good, necessarily: some of the policies in this country are skewed towards small population states (think farm subsidies) that are not objectively good for the country as a whole. Third, what sancho said: if you think presidential candidates spend a second thinking about Wyoming or Utah or vermont or alabama or alaska (except for fund raising) you are wrong.

    The only thing you get from the electoral system is elimination of most voter's votes.

  28. #298
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,702

    Brett Kavenaugh Supreme Court Nomination

    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    yeah, I agree with Sancho on this one. First, why shouldn't smaller population states have proportionally less of a say about who their leader should be than populous states? Second, that skewing towards smaller states doesn't strike me as a good, necessarily: some of the policies in this country are skewed towards small population states (think farm subsidies) that are not objectively good for the country as a whole. Third, what sancho said: if you think presidential candidates spend a second thinking about Wyoming or Utah or vermont or alabama or alaska (except for fund raising) you are wrong.

    The only thing you get from the electoral system is elimination of most voter's votes.
    If I’m remembering correctly from history classes taken long ago, that was the compromise that the Founders reached. Also, you and Sancho are right in noting that the large states already have a high number of electoral votes, and get most of the attention. The electoral college softens that advantage somewhat. And, in close elections, the candidates want the four or five electoral votes Utah has, as well as those of other less populous states. (Of course, in 2016 one leading candidate took for granted even the large states, with serious consequences. There’s a lesson in that.)

    As I said in my last post, the ingenuity (some would say cunning) of the Founders was to make it extremely difficult to change this system. So we are probably stuck with it for a long, long time.
    Last edited by LA Ute; 10-10-2018 at 05:48 PM.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  29. #299
    Administrator U-Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    5,269
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    If I’m remembering correctly from history classes taken long ago, that was the compromise that the Founders reached. Also, you and Sancho are right in noting that the large states already have a high number of electoral votes, and get most of the attention. The electoral college softens that advantage somewhat. And, in close elections, the candidates want the four or five electoral votes Utah has, as well as those of other less populous states. (Of course, in 2016 one leading candidate took for granted even the large states, with serious consequences. There’s a lesson in that.)

    As I said in my last post, the ingenuity (some would say cunning) of the Founders was to make it extremely difficult to change this system. So we are probably stuck with it for a long, long time.

    Indeed. I think this is one of those "The Devil you know is better than The Devil you don't" type of situations.

  30. #300
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    The electoral college softens that advantage somewhat.
    I'm not sure this is true. Without the college, a democrat would fight for votes in Utah. A republican would definitely fight for votes in California. With the college, it's a pure waste of time, money, and energy.

    I suppose the main purpose of the college now is to separate the states into voting blocks. Without it, you wouldn't think of campaigning in Utah or California at all. You'd think of campaigning in America. You might target the west or target Hispanics or target people who love football or whatever. But there'd be no point in targeting a specific state.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •