Did you want Evan McMullin to win Utah?

[Alabama_Indy10]

Did you want Evan McMullin to win in Utah?

[This is Eharding, guys]

No, as that would have simply lengthened Mr. Trump's path to the presidency if that did what McMullin wanted it to. I wanted Hillary to win Utah. But, as in 1992, Utah badly disappointed.

[Liberalrocks]

No, as that would have simply lengthened Mr. Trump's path to the presidency if that did what McMullin wanted it to. I wanted Hillary to win Utah. But, as in 1992, Utah badly disappointed.

Yes I wanted either Clinton or McMullin any fluke vote to break its GOP only voting record.

[TheSaint250]

Yes just to make it interesting

[MarkD]

I wanted him to win the whole frickin' election.
I'm not saying that I had any realistic thoughts that he might win; I'm just saying that I voted for him and wanted him to win.
I preferred his position on Supreme Court appointments to that of Trump, Clinton, or Johnson.

[mencken]

I wanted him to win the whole frickin' election.
I'm not saying that I had any realistic thoughts that he might win; I'm just saying that I voted for him and wanted him to win.
I preferred his position on Supreme Court appointments to that of Trump, Clinton, or Johnson.

What do you not like about Neil Gorsuch?

[The_Doctor]

I wanted McMullin (and I suspect he would've been OK with this) to take so much of Utah's vote that Clinton eked it out over Trump in that state and coupled with winning Florida ... (and invariably we beat Clinton in 2020 with a sane nominee).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I didn't care much, to be honest. I haven't considered Utah to be potentially a deciding state one way or the other.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Yes, and I like to see these sorts of unusual election results. I was really excited when Lisa Murkowski won re-election as a write-in for the same reason I wanted to see McMullMentum take Utah.

[emailking]

Yes. It would have made a more interesting map and more interesting electoral vote count result.

[MarkD]

I wanted him to win the whole frickin' election.
I'm not saying that I had any realistic thoughts that he might win; I'm just saying that I voted for him and wanted him to win.
I preferred his position on Supreme Court appointments to that of Trump, Clinton, or Johnson.

What do you not like about Neil Gorsuch?

First of all, as of November 2016, I had no reason to predict that Neil Gorsuch was going to be nominated by Trump. That was one name among about 20 that Trump said he was probably going to appoint to the Supreme Court.
I decided not to vote for Trump because of what he said he was going to look for when choosing who to appoint: a) someone similar to Antonin Scalia, and b) that his appointees to the Court were going to have "a conservative bent." A) I don't want any more Scalias on the Court; one was too many, and Scalia often made me facepalm. Even on occasions that I would agree with his conclusion, I would feel embarrassed, as I read his opinion, at how he explained his reasoning, and at how he interpreted the Constitution. I can give you an example if you like of the first time I read one of Scalia's opinions and then thought to myself, Oh my God; that was such an erroneous explanation of what the Constitution means. B) I don't want people to be appointed to the Court because of their political ideology. People should be appointed to the Supreme Court because they are objective, not because they are conservative, moderate, or liberal.  The Court needs more people like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo, and Hugo Black, because they were dedicated to rendering objective interpretations of the Constitution.

[Oppo]

While it would have been better for Hillary to win, I thought McMuffin had a better shot, so yes.

[Thomas Jackson]

I wanted him to win the whole frickin' election.
I'm not saying that I had any realistic thoughts that he might win; I'm just saying that I voted for him and wanted him to win.
I preferred his position on Supreme Court appointments to that of Trump, Clinton, or Johnson.

What do you not like about Neil Gorsuch?

First of all, as of November 2016, I had no reason to predict that Neil Gorsuch was going to be nominated by Trump. That was one name among about 20 that Trump said he was probably going to appoint to the Supreme Court.
I decided not to vote for Trump because of what he said he was going to look for when choosing who to appoint: a) someone similar to Antonin Scalia, and b) that his appointees to the Court were going to have "a conservative bent." A) I don't want any more Scalias on the Court; one was too many, and Scalia often made me facepalm. Even on occasions that I would agree with his conclusion, I would feel embarrassed, as I read his opinion, at how he explained his reasoning, and at how he interpreted the Constitution. I can give you an example if you like of the first time I read one of Scalia's opinions and then thought to myself, Oh my God; that was such an erroneous explanation of what the Constitution means. B) I don't want people to be appointed to the Court because of their political ideology. People should be appointed to the Supreme Court because they are objective, not because they are conservative, moderate, or liberal.  The Court needs more people like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo, and Hugo Black, because they were dedicated to rendering objective interpretations of the Constitution.

You have a warped sense of a great justice.

Holmes was a monster. His "legal realism" actually strips law from objectivity and creates a tyrannical force.

Realists reject any attempts to “find” law in an objective fashion. Instead, under their philosophy, law essentially becomes an exercise of power, and the study of law becomes a method to predict how that power will be applied in contemporary society.

“The object of our study, then, is prediction, the prediction of the incidence of the public force through the instrumentality of the courts.”

[MarkD]

You have a warped sense of a great justice.

Holmes was a monster. His "legal realism" actually strips law from objectivity and creates a tyrannical force.

Realists reject any attempts to “find” law in an objective fashion. Instead, under their philosophy, law essentially becomes an exercise of power, and the study of law becomes a method to predict how that power will be applied in contemporary society.

“The object of our study, then, is prediction, the prediction of the incidence of the public force through the instrumentality of the courts.”

The only thing you said that I agree with is that the philosophy of "legal realism" is contradictory to an objective approach to finding law (I think that's what you said). A "legal realist" on the SCOTUS is a monster. But where I disagree with you is that you are asserting Holmes WAS a legal realist, which is something I have not heard before, and I see no reason to agree that he was one. Holmes interpreted the Constitution correctly, especially with regard to the importance of freedom of speech, the lack of there being any "substantive" meaning to the Due Process Clauses, and that the Equal Protection Clause required racial equality but no other kind of equality than that. Holmes has often been recognized, by constitutional scholars, to be one of the greatest Justices the Court has had. Holmes's philosophy of interpreting law clearly left a tremendous impression on Judge Learned Hand, one of the greatest federal judges we've ever had. Hand has passed on a story about the time he had lunch with Holmes. After lunch was over, they were parting company, and Hand burst out to Holmes, "Do justice, sir; do justice!" But Holmes stopped, turned to face Hand, and said, "That is not my job; my job is to apply the law." That is not a "realist" talking.

Your quote about Holmes having said that people in the legal profession have to make predictions about how the courts will rule does not seem to have anything to do with promoting a philosophy of "legal realism." That quote would not have meant that Holmes had been a realist unless Holmes had also said something like, "We should assume that judges almost always base their decisions on their own values."

[100% pro-life no matter what]

That would have depended on how the other states shook out, but I am satisfied with the election, though I would also have been fine with President McMullin if no one got to 270.

[Miles]

     Yes, and I like to see these sorts of unusual election results. I was really excited when Lisa Murkowski won re-election as a write-in for the same reason I wanted to see McMullMentum take Utah.

[Thomas Jackson]

You have a warped sense of a great justice.

Holmes was a monster. His "legal realism" actually strips law from objectivity and creates a tyrannical force.

Realists reject any attempts to “find” law in an objective fashion. Instead, under their philosophy, law essentially becomes an exercise of power, and the study of law becomes a method to predict how that power will be applied in contemporary society.

“The object of our study, then, is prediction, the prediction of the incidence of the public force through the instrumentality of the courts.”

The only thing you said that I agree with is that the philosophy of "legal realism" is contradictory to an objective approach to finding law (I think that's what you said). A "legal realist" on the SCOTUS is a monster. But where I disagree with you is that you are asserting Holmes WAS a legal realist, which is something I have not heard before, and I see no reason to agree that he was one. Holmes interpreted the Constitution correctly, especially with regard to the importance of freedom of speech, the lack of there being any "substantive" meaning to the Due Process Clauses, and that the Equal Protection Clause required racial equality but no other kind of equality than that. Holmes has often been recognized, by constitutional scholars, to be one of the greatest Justices the Court has had. Holmes's philosophy of interpreting law clearly left a tremendous impression on Judge Learned Hand, one of the greatest federal judges we've ever had. Hand has passed on a story about the time he had lunch with Holmes. After lunch was over, they were parting company, and Hand burst out to Holmes, "Do justice, sir; do justice!" But Holmes stopped, turned to face Hand, and said, "That is not my job; my job is to apply the law." That is not a "realist" talking.

Your quote about Holmes having said that people in the legal profession have to make predictions about how the courts will rule does not seem to have anything to do with promoting a philosophy of "legal realism." That quote would not have meant that Holmes had been a realist unless Holmes had also said something like, "We should assume that judges almost always base their decisions on their own values."

I absolutely agree wth you that substantive due process is a myth. Substantive due process is newspeak for "judges get to make law according to their whims."

I also agree with you in regards to an expansive reading on the equal protection clause.

However, on Holmes, we disagree.

Holmes attempted to remove the law from any connection with morality and natural law and the foundation which recognizes a "law above the law." To Holmes, law was power and nothing more. That's an utterly dangerous philosophy.

[Mr. Smith]

Nah, I'd have preferred for him to play spoiler and turn Utah red for the first time since Johnson...which was also the last time the state voted left of Arizona just ftr.

A Hillary victory there, even if everything else still went as expected at least would've done a great job downballot for the state Dems.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

     Yes, and I like to see these sorts of unusual election results. I was really excited when Lisa Murkowski won re-election as a write-in for the same reason I wanted to see McMullMentum take Utah.

This, of course (and for other reasons).

[JoshPA]

he is a neocon i am happy he didnt get a  million votes he didnt even win a county he underperfrom in my opinion i did wanted him to be second in the state thought.