american girl

politics, power & the fine print.
history repeats itself. I check the facts and keep the receipts.

[american girl @heramendment]

If you’re a grown man in my replies getting upset because a woman has political opinions on the internet, I really need you to pull yourself together.

I know you’re having some big feelings, but there’s no need to get so emotional. It’s just politics, sweetheart.

[The Associated Press @AP]

A soldier guarding the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier issued a verbal reprimand to a group of advisers and staffers with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth following a Veterans Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. As the group broke from taking photos, a loud laugh could be heard, and the soldier guarding the tomb shouted: “All visitors will maintain an atmosphere of silence and respect at all times.”

[american girl @heramendment]

@HouseDemocrats So what the fuck happened?

[Julius Kim @Julius_Kim]

I feel like Mitch McConnell being allowed to vote in the mental/physical state that he’s in should be a bigger story.

[Olivia Julianna 🇺🇸🦅🗳️ @0liviajulianna]

Oh Pete you in danger girl

[american girl @heramendment]

Matt, I appreciate you taking the time to explain your position. I think we’ve gone back and forth enough, so I’ll leave you with this.

I understand the legislative process and the compromises involved. But explaining how a law came to exist doesn’t necessarily address the concerns about how that authority was exercised.

And I don’t think we can discuss HB392 without acknowledging the broader context. Between the Legislature’s challenges to voter-approved initiatives, its responses to unfavorable judicial decisions, and the original provisions of HB392 itself, I think Utahns have legitimate reasons to question how legislative power is being exercised.

Four affected cases aren’t insignificant simply because there weren’t forty. And while subsequent amendments matter, they don’t erase the questions surrounding the original law.

I also think it’s worth considering whether you’d defend these same powers if they were exercised by a Legislature whose politics you fundamentally opposed.

Ultimately, having the authority to do something and being justified in doing it are two different things. I think that distinction deserves more consideration than it’s been given here.

I appreciate the conversation, and I respect your willingness to engage, even if we don’t see eye to eye. I’ll leave it there.

[american girl @heramendment]

Matt, I understand your goal was to have three judges hear certain constitutional challenges instead of one. You’ve made that clear. But I don’t understand why you’re dismissing my questions about how that process works as “tiny components.”

Who gets to request a panel, when they can request one, and whether the opposing party can challenge the process aren’t minor details. They determine how the law actually operates.

And here’s what concerns me most: the state was already defending its actions in these lawsuits, yet the Legislature created a process that allowed certain state officials to change how those same cases would be heard, even years into litigation.

Essentially, lawmakers created a new procedural option for the government in lawsuits challenging its own actions, without initially extending that same option to the opposing plaintiffs.

Under the original HB392, certain state officials could request three-judge panels while opposing plaintiffs couldn’t. The notice convening a panel also couldn’t be challenged or subjected to judicial review.

I understand the Legislature has authority to establish court procedures. But having that authority doesn’t automatically make every exercise of it fair or constitutional.

If the goal was protecting judicial independence and restoring public trust, surely you can understand why people would question the government changing the rules mid-case when it has a direct interest in the outcome.

HB366 later expanded access to either party, but that doesn’t explain why the original law was structured this way, why it applied to pending cases, or what safeguards protected plaintiffs from potential abuse.

As for Judge Gibson, I appreciate you clarifying that you discussed impeachment with legislative attorneys before opening the bill file. I’m not disputing that those conversations happened.

But I also understand impeachment is a political process. That doesn’t mean it’s free from constitutional standards. Utah’s Constitution specifies grounds for impeachment, including malfeasance in office. So what specific conduct did you believe met those grounds?

Ultimately, I’m not disputing your authority to propose judicial reform. I’m asking whether HB392’s design was justified, fairly structured, and effective.

You’ve explained what you wanted the law to accomplish. But its actual provisions and consequences matter just as much as its stated purpose.

You can’t dismiss the parts of a law that determine who gets to exercise power as minor details. Those are precisely the parts the public should be questioning.

And when the government is defending a lawsuit while helping write the rules that change how it’s heard, I think the public deserves a better explanation than simply saying three judges are better than one. And “that’s it.”

[american girl @heramendment]

Now we’re getting somewhere. I appreciate you explaining the cost argument behind HB392’s original state-only provision. But your comparison overlooks an important distinction.

A plaintiff choosing where to file a lawsuit under existing rules isn’t the same as the state changing how a case is heard years into litigation. Plaintiffs don’t get to handpick their judges, either.

Under HB392, certain state officials could request a three-judge panel while opposing plaintiffs couldn’t. The notice convening that panel also couldn’t be challenged or subjected to judicial review. How was giving the government that exclusive authority consistent with judicial fairness?

I understand your concerns about costs, but your sovereign-citizen example is hypothetical. HB366 later expanded access to either party with a filing fee, so why wasn’t that approach considered initially?

And you still haven’t explained why HB392 applied to pending lawsuits or why the Attorney General sought to transfer those four particular cases. I recognize you didn’t select them, but your legislation made those requests possible.

Regarding Judge Gibson, your explanation still doesn’t quite match your public statements. In your November 11 interview with Deseret News, you indicated that her ruling prompted you to open the impeachment bill file. Yet you claim you attempted impeachment long before that. What earlier action are you referring to?

And if you already had evidence of misconduct, wouldn’t presenting it have strengthened your case by establishing concerns independent of the ruling?

You also said on November 25 that you wanted to see how the Legislature’s appeal unfolded before proceeding. I understand concerns about appearances, but that makes the independent evidence of misconduct even more important.

Even if misconduct by Judge Gibson were established, that wouldn’t automatically justify restructuring constitutional litigation statewide.

So while I appreciate your cost explanation, my central questions remain: Why apply HB392 to ongoing cases, what justified the original unequal access, and what evidence shows it improved judicial accountability or efficiency?

Respectfully, Matt, these are questions about legislation you sponsored. I don’t think explaining its design and consequences should require this much back-and-forth.

[american girl @heramendment]

Now we’re getting somewhere. I appreciate you explaining the cost argument behind HB392’s original state-only provision. But your comparison overlooks an important distinction.

A plaintiff choosing where to file a lawsuit under existing rules isn’t the same as the state changing how a case is heard years into litigation. Plaintiffs don’t get to handpick their judges, either.

Under HB392, certain state officials could request a three-judge panel while opposing plaintiffs couldn’t. The notice convening that panel also couldn’t be challenged or subjected to judicial review. How was giving the government that exclusive authority consistent with judicial fairness?

I understand your concerns about costs, but your sovereign-citizen example is hypothetical. HB366 later expanded access to either party with a filing fee, so why wasn’t that approach considered initially?

And you still haven’t explained why HB392 applied to pending lawsuits or why the Attorney General sought to transfer those four particular cases. I recognize you didn’t select them, but your legislation made those requests possible.

Regarding Judge Gibson, your explanation still doesn’t quite match your public statements. In your November 11 interview with Deseret News, you indicated that her ruling prompted you to open the impeachment bill file. Yet you claim you attempted impeachment long before that. What earlier action are you referring to?

And if you already had evidence of misconduct, wouldn’t presenting it have strengthened your case by establishing concerns independent of the ruling?

You also said on November 25 that you wanted to see how the Legislature’s appeal unfolded before proceeding. I understand concerns about appearances, but that makes the independent evidence of misconduct even more important.

Even if misconduct by Judge Gibson were established, that wouldn’t automatically justify restructuring constitutional litigation statewide.

So while I appreciate your cost explanation, my central questions remain: Why apply HB392 to ongoing cases, what justified the original unequal access, and what evidence shows it improved judicial accountability or efficiency?

Respectfully, Matt, these are questions about legislation you sponsored. I don’t think explaining its design and consequences should require this much back-and-forth.

[american girl @heramendment]

Matt, throughout this conversation, you’ve offered several explanations for HB392: legislative compromise, judicial accountability, and now your family’s personal experiences. I’m not suggesting they can’t all be true. But none answers the questions I’ve repeatedly asked about the law itself.

I accept your clarification that party leadership didn’t ask you to introduce HB392, and of course your family deserves representation. But I’m still curious how the problems you’ve described led to this particular reform.

Why did HB392 originally allow certain state officials to request three-judge panels in lawsuits already years into litigation? Why not limit it to future cases? And what justified giving the state that authority while it was defending its own actions in court?

I’d also like to understand why the Attorney General chose those four particular constitutional challenges. I recognize that wasn’t your decision, but your legislation made those requests possible.

Regarding Judge Gibson, I looked into your claim that you attempted impeachment long before her redistricting ruling. In your November 11, 2025 interview with Deseret News, you indicated that the ruling prompted you to open the impeachment bill file. So when was the earlier attempt? I haven’t found a public record documenting one.

Then, on November 25, you said you wanted to see how the Legislature’s appeal and special session unfolded before deciding whether to proceed.

I understand there may have been strategic reasons to wait. But if you had evidence of misconduct predating the ruling, wouldn’t that have strengthened your case by establishing a pattern independent of the redistricting dispute? Why wasn’t that evidence central to your public explanation?

And even if there was evidence of misconduct by Judge Gibson, that would support investigating her conduct. It wouldn’t automatically justify restructuring how constitutional challenges are heard statewide. I still haven’t heard how one justifies the other.

That’s also why I find your accusation about partisan talking points interesting. You’ve questioned judicial integrity and accused the judiciary of overreach and corruption. Yet when I question the motivations (the only logical option we can think about this) behind your legislation, you dismiss it as speculation. Why should that scrutiny only work one way?

Motivations matter when evaluating policy. Understanding why a law was created, how it operates, and what it accomplishes is part of examining its merits.

We already have appeals and judicial conduct procedures. What were those safeguards failing to address, and how did three-judge panels improve the process? Especially considering the additional litigation and delays surrounding the transfers, what evidence shows HB392 has improved accountability, efficiency, or public trust?

You’ve explained why you wanted judicial reform. I’m asking you to connect those reasons to the legislation and its results.

You invited me to ask policy questions, and that’s exactly what I’ve done. Questions about a law’s design, application, alternatives, and consequences aren’t partisan simply because you disagree with them.

So I’ll ask again: What specific problem did HB392 solve, and what evidence demonstrates that it solved it?

Explaining why you wanted reform isn’t the same as demonstrating that it was needed or that it worked.

And Representative, if being asked to explain the purpose, design, and consequences of legislation you sponsored is too much scrutiny, I have to question whether you fully appreciate the responsibility that comes with writing laws that affect everyone else.

Perhaps that’s also worth reflecting on when considering your election loss.

[american girl @heramendment]

I appreciate you explaining your perspective. But I think we’re missing my bigger point: Were your legislative priorities driven by the needs of your constituents or the political priorities of your party?

I understand legislation involves compromise, but you were the chief sponsor of HB392 and supported the final version. You’ve mentioned how many other lawmakers helped shape it, which makes me wonder how much reflected your priorities versus theirs. If you had concerns about certain provisions, what did you do to address them?

I also find your argument about restoring public trust in the judiciary interesting, considering you publicly called for Judge Gibson’s impeachment after her redistricting ruling.

Have you considered that lawmakers accusing judges of misconduct after unfavorable rulings might contribute to the very distrust they’re claiming to address? Disagreeing with a ruling isn’t proof of misconduct. An unfavorable decision doesn’t automatically mean the judge is the problem.

Then there’s the timing of HB392. Some of these lawsuits had been working their way through the courts for years, with judges already assigned. Yet shortly after HB392 passed, the state sought to transfer four ongoing cases involving abortion, redistricting, and environmental issues to a new three-judge process.

Why these particular cases? And why change how they were heard mid-case, especially when lawmakers had already criticized some of the rulings?

I understand HB366 later expanded who could request panels and established a fallback court if the original system was struck down. But the transfer process also triggered additional litigation and delays, including a long-awaited hearing in the abortion-ban case.

That’s particularly interesting when you promoted HB392 as a way to make constitutional cases more efficient.

And if this was about judicial accountability, we already have appeals and procedures for addressing misconduct. What were those safeguards failing to address? And what evidence shows HB392 has actually improved accountability, efficiency, or public trust?

Without clear answers, I think it’s fair to question what problem the Legislature was really trying to solve.

Which brings me back to school meals and legislative priorities.

I recognize HB148 was an effort to address school meal debt. But helping families feed their children isn’t replacing parental responsibility, and relying on voluntary donations leaves assistance dependent on how much people contribute.

For a state that prides itself on family values, why is direct assistance to struggling families treated as an unnecessary government expense while we’re willing to fund court restructuring?

I’m not suggesting these policies share a budget. I’m questioning what we’re choosing to prioritize.

Families in your district are struggling with housing, groceries, and childcare. No single legislator can solve those problems, but constituents deserve to know whether their everyday concerns received as much attention as the Legislature’s political disputes.

Perhaps that’s worth considering when reflecting on your election loss. I can’t speak for every voter, but I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility that your legislative priorities played a role.

You’ve argued strongly for holding judges accountable. I think it’s only fair to expect that same accountability from lawmakers.

And as you prepare to leave office, these questions deserve answers. You were the chief sponsor of HB392, and its consequences will outlast your term.

Ultimately, Matt, you were elected to represent your district, not party leadership. Explaining why you passed a bill isn’t the same as showing that it served the people who elected you.

[american girl @heramendment]

I appreciate the clarification. And I agree, we should be able to have these conversations without resorting to name-calling.

But I do want to push back on a few things.

First, I understand that efficiency may not have been your primary reason for supporting HB392. But in your own Week 2 legislative newsletter, you specifically said your goal was to encourage “faster, more consistent decision-making” rather than bogging down district courts. https://t.co/EEPPAAWH1b

So I don’t think it’s unreasonable to question whether the bill actually delivered on that goal. Especially when its implementation led to additional legal disputes and delays.

And your argument about protecting the judiciary is interesting, because I think you’re overlooking something important.

You said a single judge blocking a statewide law on what you considered partisan grounds was undermining public trust. But a judge ruling against the Legislature doesn’t automatically make that judge partisan. Isn’t reviewing the constitutionality of laws exactly what our courts are supposed to do?

You also mentioned preventing judge shopping. But HB392 originally gave certain state officials the ability to move cases to three-judge panels, while other parties didn’t have that same option. HB366 later expanded that ability to either party, which is worth acknowledging.

Still, I think it’s fair to ask why changing how these cases are heard was considered the solution to concerns about judges ruling against the state.

And I agree that protecting the constitutional roles of each branch matters. But shouldn’t that also mean protecting the judiciary’s independence, even when its decisions are unpopular with lawmakers?

I also don’t think protecting our constitutional system and addressing the financial struggles of Utah families are competing priorities. Government has a responsibility to both.

I appreciate the discussion, though. These are exactly the kinds of questions I think elected officials should be willing to engage with.

[american girl @heramendment]

@SovereigntyWon @DerrickEvans4WV You’re a Chiefs AND Cowboys fan, so I’m guessing you’re used to disappointment.

But unfortunately, that’s not how taxes work. We all pay for things we don’t personally agree with. You don’t get to opt out just because you don’t like where the money goes.

K?

[american girl @heramendment]

Responding to both of your replies here, Representative.

First, I absolutely plan to run for office one day! But I’d argue that constituents asking questions, challenging legislation, and holding their elected officials accountable is already part of the democratic process, isn’t it? You don’t have to run for office to have a say in how your government operates.

Anyway, back to HB392. I never argued that courts shouldn’t receive funding. I’m questioning whether your particular three-judge panel system was a good use of taxpayer money.

The argument for the bill was that it would make constitutional cases more efficient and resolve them faster. Yet the state’s attempt to use it in ongoing cases created additional legal disputes and delays. Utah’s abortion-ban lawsuit is a pretty good example. I think that case already had a hearing scheduled for April before the effort to transfer it disrupted the proceedings.

So here’s my question: Did this actually solve the problem it was supposed to fix? Because creating a new system with ongoing costs, only to spend more time in court arguing over the system itself, isn’t exactly the efficiency taxpayers were promised.

And on school meals, I think you’re missing the bigger picture. Of course parents have a responsibility to feed their children. Nobody is disputing that. But families are struggling to afford housing, groceries, childcare, and gas, even while working full-time. And it’s not like federal government has made those pressures disappear. Federal meal assistance doesn’t reach every family that needs help, either. Your own school meal debt bill acknowledges there’s still a problem.

You can argue about parental responsibility all you want, but that doesn’t make a hungry child any less hungry.

Personally, I’d rather see more of my tax dollars helping feed children than funding additional legal battles over a court process that was supposed to save time, yet has already caused delays in cases it was meant to help resolve.

And regarding your election, I don’t disagree that national politics played a role. But frustration with Utah’s Legislature didn’t suddenly appear on Tuesday. Republican primary voters ousted Senate President Stuart Adams and other incumbents back in June. That wasn’t a national Democratic wave. Those were Republicans voting out members of their own party.

Your own 2024 race was also decided by fewer than 1,000 votes. So I wouldn’t be so quick to assume your legislative record had little to do with this year’s outcome.

You said policies matter more than the people holding office, and I agree. But those policies don’t write or pass themselves. Legislators are responsible for the decisions they make and the consequences that follow.

Maybe national politics contributed to your loss. Maybe your constituents had concerns about your representation, too. Both can be true.

I just find it interesting that you’re willing to acknowledge widespread frustration with the Utah Legislature, but seem reluctant to consider that some of that frustration might have been directed at you, too.

[american girl @heramendment]

@HankDesmondPhD That’s not how the burden of proof works. You’re the one suggesting there was fraud, so you’re the one who needs to provide evidence.

Otherwise, anyone could make up an accusation and demand everyone else prove it didn’t happen.

And you have a PhD? Come on, Hank.

[american girl @heramendment]

You’re entitled to believe that. But saying “murder is murder” still doesn’t explain why the government should have the authority to force someone to stay pregnant.

You can believe a fetus has rights without pretending there’s no conflict with the rights of the woman carrying it. That’s literally the point of this conversation.

[american girl @heramendment]

@misstalkie1 @davidtaylor0390 For real!

[american girl @heramendment]

Wait, you’re a family medicine physician who advocates for improving health literacy? That’s actually scary.

First of all, you’re wrong. According to KFF, five states with abortion bans or early gestational limits don’t even have broader health exceptions. And even in states where exceptions exist, doctors have documented delays in care because of how vague and restrictive these laws are. An exception written into law doesn’t magically mean a patient can access care. Surely, as a physician, you understand that distinction.

Second, calling abortion a “lifestyle choice” isn’t a medical argument. It’s your personal opinion. And whether you agree with someone’s reasons for getting an abortion doesn’t change the medical risks of pregnancy.

But what’s especially disturbing is that we’re talking about a woman who was raped and developed a potentially life-threatening pregnancy complication. And instead of acknowledging any of that, you decided this was a good opportunity to lecture us about selfishness and “deadbeat choices.” Seriously? Sad.

You can oppose abortion. That’s your right. But your personal beliefs don’t change medical facts, and they certainly don’t make the consequences of abortion bans disappear.

For someone whose bio emphasizes patient education and health literacy, you’re doing a remarkable job demonstrating why both are so important.

[american girl @heramendment]

Maureen, I’m talking about the government forcing women to continue pregnancies, and you’re bringing up a woman accused of killing her three children after they were born.

Those are two entirely different situations. You can believe abortion is wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that banning it means the government gets to decide whether a woman can end her pregnancy. You can support that kind of control, but at least acknowledge what you’re supporting.

Lindsay Clancy has nothing to do with that argument. Bringing her up doesn’t make your point. It just avoids mine.

[american girl @heramendment]

So you understand why it’s unfair to blame white people for slavery just because they’re white, but saying Muslims shouldn’t be blamed for terrorism they had nothing to do with is somehow giving them a free pass?

A free pass for what, exactly? Nobody said terrorists shouldn’t be held accountable or that Islam is above criticism. I’m saying innocent people aren’t responsible for crimes committed by others simply because they share a religion. The same principle applies to race.

And yes, slavery existed in other parts of the world. Nobody disputed that either.

Anyway, that’s a lot of anger for someone who apparently didn’t read what he was responding to.