Gorsuch To Address Right Wingers At Trump Hotel

Law Newz reports:

Appearance of impropriety? Perish the thought. President Donald Trump‘s first appointed Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch, plans to address a group of conservatives late next month at the president’s own personally-branded hotel in Washington, D.C.

The Fund for American Studies (TFAS) is a non-profit dedicated to advancing conservative interests through various academic and fellowship programs and is directly linked to the right-wing State Policy Network group of think tanks and tax-exempt entities, according to The Center for Media and Democracy.

  • joe ho

    Gorsuch: brought to you by Green Partiers and Bernie or Busters.

    Setting back LGBT rights for a generation. Thanks!

    • Ninja0980

      But hey, it was worth it for that progressive revolution right?

    • downtownla

      Sorry, but this is all the Democratic Party’s fault. The same party that nominated the weakest Presidential candidate possible, one who couldn’t beat a racist/sexist/liar, is also the same party that failed to fight for Merrick Garland and failed to retain the Senate in 2014 because they hoarded all their funds for 2016. The Democrats have got to learn how to energize their base and that means learning how to fight. Whining about losing because people didn’t want to fight for you, isn’t going to cut. You fix it by learning how to get people to want to vote for you.

      • Todd20036

        Oh you fucking worthless Bernie bro.

        1) Hillary Clinton was a strong candidate.
        2) She won 3 million more votes than Trump despite 30 years of anti Clinton RWNJ stories
        Despite the whole email “scandal” that was a scandal only because Comey released emails in dribs and drabs right up to election night
        3) The entire Russian hacking
        4) Voter suppression
        5) The equal time CNN gave Hillary’s “emails” as they did Trump’s bigotries, rapes, mental issues, and general incompetence
        6) Bernie LOST THE PRIMARIES by 2.3 million votes
        7) Bernie was a fucking socialist. Which in case you missed it, would have been used against him.
        8) Bernie wrote rape porn. Don’t tell me that is a lie. That’s what the GOP would have claimed

        Why don’t you fucking go away. It’s obvious that you won’t vote for a democratic candidate if he/she isn’t “pure” enough for you

        • downtownla

          I’m trying to analyze what went wrong in 2016 so it doesn’t happen again in 2018 or 2020. Constantly complaining about how 1.) the left wouldn’t vote for Hillary or 2.) Republicans and Russians played dirty won’t help. Those dynamics will be in play again. As for what I think she did wrong, and how we can fix them next time, if you even care:
          1.) Hillary didn’t have a clear message that inspired voters… saying you are the most qualified is not a winning slogan or that you are “with her” is too vague. Democrats need to come up with a clear message or slogan that defines the party and what they stand for. As much as we hate Trump, he understood, “Make America Great Again” was a winning message to rally his base
          2.) She was too cautious in her campaign. In an election that was all about change, she presented herself as the establishment, taking safe positions. Her WORST decision of the campaign was choosing Tim Kaine as her VP. Choosing such a centrist and telling everyone that Latinos will be excited about him because he speaks Spanish was stupid and insulting. Imagine if she had chosen another woman to be her VP or a person of color or a gay person. She could have ran on the idea of change. But instead she went the middle/safe route
          3.) She didn’t understand where the votes were. Hillary was spending way too much time in places like Arizona and North Carolina, even when her staffers in the Upper Midwest were begging her to come visit. The fact that she all but ignored Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan in the general election was just not smart
          4.) Emphasizing high-donor parties as opposed to big political rallies was bad optics. Again, she was spending all this time in LA, SF and NY throwing fundraisers when she should have been holding rallies in swing districts instead.
          5.) De-emphasis on voter registration. Notice the absence of voter registration drives during the primary and general? Hillary got fewer votes than Obama. However, given the demographic changes in the past 8 years, there were more voters of color and young people. She just needed to hold the Obama coalition.

          Anyway, I will stop there. I do think sexism, voter suppression, and James Comey all played a role, but ultimately, I think the biggest reason Hillary lost is because of herself and her bad campaign decisions. You just don’t lose to a lying, racist, sexist, homophobic, tax-evading idiot like Trump unless you’ve made some critical mistakes. Only by asking ourself why we truly lost, will we be able to fix it for 2018 and beyond.

          • Todd20036

            She “lost” by 60,000 votes across 5 southern states.
            This isn’t both sides.
            One side cheated.

          • joe ho

            And the far-left did all it could to sabotage her–out of anger and spite because their feelings were hurt. They are as guilty as the Trumpanzees.

          • Franciscan

            Hey, I’m on the “far left,” and I didn’t sabotage anybody’s campaign. Clinton got more votes and still “lost” the election. You can spin that many ways, but I wish you guys would quit screaming about “sabotage” on the Democratic side. If y’all don’t stop sniping at each other, there’s no way Democrats will win the next time around.

          • joe ho

            lol. 2000. 2016. Until far-left saboteurs become more self aware of their self-destructive voting behaviors not much will change. They can bitch as much as they want during the primaries, but during the general election it’s vote blue no matter who. Sadly they don’t do that. If their feelings have been hurt or if the candidate doesn’t meet their purity standards, they walk away to pout or, even worse, actively sabotage. 2000. 2016. Best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. That’s why we can’t forget past behavior. You should be concerned about changing that behavior too, if you’re really interested in advancing progressive change. It doesn’t come about by revolutions staged by rigid, purist ideologues.

          • PRW

            Of the nine votes that were counted at all in 2000, zero were for Nader.

          • downtownla

            Yes, and the Republicans will cheat again. They do it every cycle. And the Greens and Far lefties will siphon off a certain amount of votes, too. Nothing you can do about that. However, if the Democrats can come up with a clear, positive message that matches the mood of the country, which is often change, and they can find a messenger who inspires new and young voters, then they can win. But it has to be a grassroots effort. Democrats can’t run a DC-NY-LA centered campaign. They basically have to do what Obama did for the left (and Trump did for the right). They need an outsider candidate with a message of change who can inspire their base, and use social media and other things to bypass the party infrastructure. That is how you win a modern-day Presidential election.

        • The_Wretched

          “downtownla” is a troll and not a progressive.

      • joe ho


        You mean the woman who won more votes than any other candidate in history except Obama 2008?

        It took Wikileaks, Putin, a rogue FBI, GOP voter suppression plus a vicious attack from the left by fucktards like you to bring her down.

        Bernie couldn’t even win California. And that was with the GOP and Putin backing him.

        Now take all your far-left Che Guevara wannabe saboteurs and throw yourselves off a very tall building. You’ve done enough damage to the progressive causes. 2000. 2016. You are disgusting scum.

        How Putin played the far left into voting against its own interests.

        Not only are you morally bankrupt. You’re fools and easily manipulated.

        • PRW

          Or, you know, election fraud …

          • joe ho

            lol. Or, you know, virtue-signaling leftist saboteurs who vote against their own interests.

          • PRW

            Your purity trolling is so much purer than their purity, I guess. Any background in cybersecurity? https://www.cnet.com/news/defcon-hackers-find-its-very-easy-to-break-voting-machines/

          • joe ho

            lol. could/might have and did are a mile apart. you belong with the Alex Jones crowd. we know for a fact far-left saboteurs undermined Clinton in the general when faced with an existential threat like trump.

          • PRW

            And there it is again. Why is it, I wonder, that political ‘sabotage’ is so much easier to accept than technical sabotage? It doesn’t take a PhD in international relations to see why Putin might prefer Trump in the White House over Clinton, even if we assume Trump isn’t compromised outright; the means and the opportunity to compromise the election systems were available; but to think that Putin took advantage of them is somehow crazy talk. Why is that? What is it about the Bernie Bro notion that makes it seem more plausible to you? Is election tampering just too heinous, or what?

          • joe ho


            There you go again. In denial. Trying to shift blame from something real and verifiable to a conspiracy theory.

            No question Putin was aiding Trump. No evidence any votes were changed. That’s a conspiracy theory.

            Understanding the difference in psychology of conservative and liberal voters is the key. It’s a real recurrent phenomenon.

            Conservatives are high on tribal loyalty. They will eat their own vomit to keep the other tribe out of power. They give each other hell during the primaries. But in the general they always coalesce. That’s why they win. And they turn out for midterm elections.

            Liberals are low on tribal loyalty. If they feel their feelings have been hurt or if the candidate doesn’t meet their purity standards they stalk off, pout, and, worse, sabotage their own tribe. They don’t have the discipline to turn out for midterm elections.

            That’s the social science. Until fucktard apologists like you start understanding that essential weakness in far-left voters, liberals will continue to lose in tight elections.

            Third term elections are always hard to win. It’s an all hands on deck moment. 2000. 2016. Far-left saboteurs preferred to virtue-signal, giving us Bush and Trump.

          • PRW

            Beginning to get it; you feel you understand the social science and think it supports your vision of purity (any blue dog as long as it’s blue), so that’s salient, you don’t seem able to engage the technology, therefore it’s presumed sound and questioning it is ‘conspiracy theory’. I guess you can take some consolation in your pure pureness however strange and contrary to polling the ‘elections’ turn out.

          • joe ho

            lol. I’ve gotten it from the beginning. You’re an apologist for the self-defeating voting behavior of the far-left–which manifests time and again.

          • PRW

            Come to think of it, isn’t your argument an indictment of the Clinton campaign anyway? Even if we assume that the elections were all 100% pristine and Trump’s inauguration is entirely the fault of the damn dirty hippies who failed to clap loudly enough; to hear you tell it this is known to ‘social science’ and ‘manifests time and again’. This was hardly HRC’s first rodeo, yet she failed to anticipate and work around this? The only solution, still, is to demand greater Dem purity? Is this sort of like how Real Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed?

          • joe ho

            lol. Not at all an indictment. It’s a vindication. How only 70,000 votes spread over WI, MI, PA gave Trump the EC despite the sustained vicious attack from the far-left in a third term election. Despite crafting the most progressive platform in history, it wasn’t enough for many of the progressive extremists.

            And as for your “only” narrative, that’s a strawman. It took Wikileaks, Putin, a rogue FBI, GOP voter suppression as well as the self- destructive left to bring her down. Still won the popular vote by 3 million.

            The central point which you dance around in your pitiful attempt to deflect blame is that the Green Partiers, Bernie or Busters, and Bernie Bros all did their part to defeat her, knowing full well that Trump would be the result. They know presidential elections in the us are almost always close. They know our system is essentially binary and that third party and protest votes serve as spoilers. And yet they did it anyway.

            The existential threat posed by Trump made this an all men on deck moment. The far-left, claiming to want progressive change, preferred to snipe and sabotage.

            You seem unable to accept the fact that the far-left needs to develop more political discipline to achieve political success. Instead you look for excuses for their childish, narcissistic, self-destructive behavior.

            And liberals with voting discipline can easily overwhelm GOP suppression tricks by changing their voting culture and voting in every election (not just presidential years) and in almost all cases voting blue no matter who. LIke the GOP, they need to mature and understand the universe doesn’t owe them a candidate that makes them feel tingly all over. Voting for the lesser of two evils is indeed less evil.

            Even far-left icon Chomsky, who dislikes Clinton, says that people on the left who didn’t vote for Clinton made a very, very bad mistake.


            A mistake you’re too foolish to admit–and correct.

    • HZ81

      Don’t forget Where’s Aleppo!

    • CJAS

      Nope. Sorry. We have Gorsuch because because 63% of white men and 53% of white women (70% of all voters) wanted their superior social status upheld.

      • Rocco

        It can be both, or “all of the above.”

        • CJAS

          No, there is a moral difference. Being naïve, stubborn, short-sighted, is not the same as the need to subjugate.

          • Rocco

            You seem quite certain.

          • CJAS

            Are you suggesting there isn’t a moral difference?

          • Rocco

            I’m not suggesting anything other than what I have already written. I personally would not hold myself out about being “certain” about too many things in life. I would definitely would not say I was certain about the most important motivation for millions of voters, “white” or otherwise.

          • CJAS

            I spent eight years studying US History, law, and political science so I could be certain. His campaign told us that oppressing Mexicans, Muslims, blacks, immigrants and refugees was what they offered. His supporters told exit polls that they thought Clinton would be better on the economy. What’s left?

          • Rocco

            What’s left is millions of people of color, including 25% of Latinos (I’m not sure of other ethnicities/numbers) who voted for this fool. There are also still very many public figures (who are not white) who still are still standing (literally) by his side. This is after his incendiary remarks to the press, from Trump Tower. Elaine Chau is a glaring example. Steven Mnuchin, a Jew, was silent about Trump’s clearly anti-Semitic remarks.

            I certainly don’t know what motivates them, but I don’t think you do either. I think it is much more complex than simple racial classifications. I also don’t think it is just “the evil white folks.” The polls that Joe published today are telling, but not perfect, or absolute. They were eye opening. I will give you that after Charlottesville, the number of all ethnicities sticking with him is shocking. Shocking, but not surprising.

            I am sympathetic to your argument, it echoes what many others here say about LGBTs who vote GOP, but I don’t think it is as simple as white racism.…and I know about LGBT, white racism. It is shocking to me that anyone is still supportive of this fascist, but it is not so easily explained.

          • CJAS

            Many Latinos identify as white. Like the white supremacist Alex Michael Ramos (Puerto Rican) who assaulted Deandre Harris in Charlottesville. And Jews are white to everyone but white supremacists. And there is also the gender bias question. But, that changes the subject.

            I suggested that white supremacy as the primary motive of those voters because that’s where the evidence leads. And I am willing to believe the evidence. I don’t find anything “simple” about that. But here is something simple: aligning themselves with overt white supremacist isn’t a deal-breaker for them.

            Our courts of law don’t require absolute certainty, but our discussion of white supremacy do.

          • Rocco

            I strongly disagree, it is not that simple, but that is no surprise, and I’m not going to continue with you. Elaine Chau is white? Black GOP members ascribe to white supremacy?

            As to the Jewish “issue” again, it’s not that simple. Ethiopian, or Ugandan Jews? Not white. I would also guess many Mizrahi, or Sephardic Jews do not identify as “white” either. Also, I’ll let you tell the millions of Puerto Rican, Cuban-American, other Latinx groups who are both part of the African diaspora, but also Latinx, that they are “white.” There were many in that demographic, especially in Florida, who voted Trump/GOP.

            Also, anecdotally, I have many friends and family in the above demographics and were Trump voters. They are not white supremacists, nor do they support white supremacy in any way, shape, or form.

          • CJAS

            Yes, most nonwhite GOPers are also white supremacists.

            I said “many Latinos”, not all, not most, many, identify as white. That’s
            a sociological fact. (Thus our census form wording.) Jews, in the United States, are white.

            I’d already deduced from your arguments that you “have many friends and family in the above demographics and were Trump voters”.

      • joe ho

        lol. Nope. We have Gorsuch because far-left saboteurs refused to show up at the polls and vote blue no matter who. Their feelings were hurt and they thought Clinton wasn’t pure enough, so they sabotaged their own progressive causes. Only 70,000 votes spread over WI, MI, PA gave Trump the EC.

        • CJAS

          It’s not rational to blame one person we assume could have stopped the arson not the 40 with torches who set it alight. Sorry, the white supremacists are to blame.

          And what responsibility does the Clinton campaign itself have? Where does that fit in your narrative? Did “far-left saboteurs” make them ignore pleas for resources from their camps in the swing states? Did they make them aim illogical “our children are watching” ads at white voters who had already determined that his racism and vulgarity was an asset?

          • joe ho


            You remain in denial.

            All campaigns are complex and make mistakes.

            Voting blue no matter who is NOT complex and hard to make a mistake with.

            That’s the difference and where to place the bulk of the blame. A very simple act: when push comes to shove, vote and vote blue no matter who.

            Far-left saboteurs did their bit in electing Trump–keeping up their savage attacks against Hillary long after the primary. They did it in 2000 to Gore. They did in 2016. They’ll do it again.

            The DNC had the most progressive platform in the history of the country and it still wasn’t good enough for the Slurandon Che Wannabe Bernie or Buster crowd.

            They didn’t vote blue no matter who. They pouted, and sulked, and stayed home or threw their vote away.

            Conservatives have strong tribal loyalty and will eat their own vomit to keep liberals out of power. They vote red no matter who. Why they win.

            Liberals lack tribal loyalty. If their feelings are hurt or if the candidate doesn’t meet their purity test they storm off, stay home or protest vote.

            Until that basic psychology changes far-left purists will continue to be the weakest link and Dems will lose when the going gets rough. All presidential elections these days are close. First far-left purists need to stop being in denial.

            As for Hillary, it took Wikileaks, Putin, a rogue FBI, GOP voter suppression plus a sustained vicious attack from the far-left to bring her down. Still won more votes than any other candidate except ObAMA 2008.

            Vote and Vote Blue No Matter Who is not hard to learn.

            Every liberal too lazy or too righteous to vote for Hillary in the general election owns this catastrophe. Those who showed up and voted for her have a clear conscience.

          • CJAS

            “All campaigns are complex and make mistakes.” That’s your answer to the final week of the race? Pathetic. The NJDC had to send resources (money and people like me) into PA because her campaign failed to support voter turnout efforts.

            Democratic voters aren’t tribal. That’s right. (Finally.) They have to be inspired. And if the party’s less than democratically determined candidate, despite four decades in the game, hasn’t mastered how to inspire voters … blame someone else.

            Clinton supporters never stopped their attacks on Obama. His teams just worked harder, smarter. Like deploying teams of lawyers (like me) to areas where they knew Republicans would engage in voter suppression.

            (How exactly does this narrative you’ve constructed inspire party unity?)

        • PRW

          Or so it is said; paper trail?

    • PRW

      So you agree with Trump that the election results weren’t tampered with?

  • Ninja0980

    But I thought he was going to a judge for all Americans.
    That’s what the ads by right wing groups told me!

  • CanuckDon

    Error: “Non-profit” and “Conservative” do not compute.

    • Karl Dubhe

      They’re synonyms of the word “crook” in this case. Not all NPs are crooked, but most conservative ones are.

    • Lane

      Actually, in this case they truly do, because non-profit is a mechanism for avoiding paying taxes. You know, just like churches.

  • Dagoril


    I’m beginning to think that Civil War 2.0 is inevitable.

  • Skokieguy [Larry]

    The coup is complete, they aren’t even pretending anymore.

    • Ninja0980

      They quit pretending long ago.

      • Uncle Mark

        Yep…Scalia was rather blatant…actually proud of it

      • gothambear

        Clarence Uncle Tom Thomas certainly never worried about speaking in front of inappropriate groups often with blatant conflicts of interest. plus there were those pubic hairs on soda cans…

  • Bluto

    We have another confirmed nazi sympathizer, or just plain nazi.

  • shellback

    Illegitimate appointee appointed by an illegitimate “president.”

  • Ninja0980

    If you think that’s bad, it’s only going to get worse from here on the Circuit and District courts.
    And I know some folks don’t want to hear it, but this is partly on the Democrats who never, ever have fought for the courts or care about it the way Republicans do.
    Many Republicans held their nose and voted for Trump and other Republicans for this reason alone last fall.
    Democrats don’t do the same.
    And when they controlled the Senate, they allowed Republicans to use the Blue slip, something Republicans did away with under W and are doing away with now to fill seats that should been filled long ago.
    Obama and the Democrats should have told Cornyn/Hutchison then Cruz along with Republicans elsewhere to go fuck themselves, that those seats were going to be filled with or without their help.
    They didn’t, and now we will pay the price for two to three generations.
    Because Republicans play to win on the courts, Democrats don’t.

    • BobSF_94117

      We cannot simultaneously argue that the GOP has gone lawless and that Dems should have gone lawless first.

      Well, you can.

  • Vira

    Gorsuch is an illegitimately appointed placeholder on the Supreme Court, and should be impeached/removed when democracy is restored.

    • worstcultever


    • Xuuths

      Removed (he hasn’t committed any crimes, so no impeachment).

      • Vira

        1) An officeholder can be impeached without having committed a crime.

        2) Gorsuch may or may not have committed crimes yet; the investigation is ongoing.

      • JCF

        “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not a strictly legal term. It can also cover fitness for office. Or, I would argue, conspiracy [Trump, McConnell and Gorsuch engaged in a conspiracy to illegitimately seat a SCOTUS justice, via an illegitimate President. 1. Trump (duh), 2. McConnell (refusing to bipartisan Congressional announcement of Russian subversion before election), 3. Everything Gorsuch knew re Russian collusion, before he was confirmed.]

  • Yixing’s Fluffer

    I did a summer with TFAS because it was an easy way to get a summer internship. They’re hard on ultra free market economics but the students tend to be from across the spectrum (though mostly white) and challenge the information they’re being fed. Their propaganda arm is strongest in their Central Europe program.

    I got in a nasty fight with a former Hill staffer-turned lobbyist who was outraged that I criticized her workplace for taking money from Equatorial Guinea and Angola.

  • joe ho

    He’s deliberately flaunting his illegitimacy. Just like he did in his first Scalia-like dissenting opinion.

  • kirby7771

    A Supreme Court Justice for all of America? Doesn’t really look that way, does it?

  • BlindBill

    Wonder what his speaker’s fee is?

  • Jean-Marc in Canada

    I know it’s get tedious, but it needs to be constantly hammered home until those on the left with no brains get it….


  • Halou

    For every dollar of the president’s salary that Trump graciously refuses to receive, he receives hundreds of dollars through corrupt practices.

    • bzrd

      It has been reported that the Resident Nazi didn’t give up any salary

      • -M-

        It’s my understanding the government is constitutionally required to pay him. He’s supposedly donating the quarterly disbursements to charity, but the donations aren’t announced in advance or immediately, amount to token visible ‘support’ to programs he’s cutting millions from, and I’m sure he’s taking the tax deductions.

  • BobSF_94117

    Taking up the Scalia mantle in more ways than one…

  • Westcoast88

    There are so many levels of corruption here.

  • Mike

    Pence, Gorsuch, the face of evil now comes framed by a regular boy’s haircut, and with the manner of a polite schoolboy. Deplorable people. Shame on universities that hire nazi sympathizers in the name of diversity. Diversity can be an overrated virtue.

  • Kelly Lape

    Shhh – let him speak… Odds are strong that at least one patriotic American will record the speech and release it… Odds are also strong that he’ll say something impeachable. May not be impeached until 2019 but odds are strong we’ll have the numbers.

  • JWC

    he is just a trmp Toadie

    • ted-

      No sight of a heart attack for him, huh…?

  • Rocco

    Picking up where Antonin left off…