(D) Mark Udall*
(R) Cory Gardner*
(D) John Hickenlooper*
(R) Tom Tancredo*
(R) Bob Beauprez*
(R) Scott Gessler*
(D) Don Quick*
(R) Cynthia Coffman*
(R) Mark Waller*
(R) Walker Stapleton*
(D) Betsy Markey*
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Wayne Williams*
(D) Diana DeGette*
(D) Jared Polis*
(R) Scott Tipton*
(D) Abel Tapia*
(R) Scott Renfroe*
(R) Ken Buck*
(R) Barbara Kirkmeyer*
(R) Steve Laffey*
(R) Doug Lamborn*
(R) Bentley Rayburn*
(D) Irv Halter*
(D) Andrew Romanoff*
(R) Mike Coffman*
(D) Ed Perlmutter*
(R) Don Ytterberg*
“The hardest tumble a man can make is to fall over his own bluff.”
in about 4 hours. Brophy still trying to use Savings Time to appear to advocate change.
laws went into effect yesterday ending the prohibition of personal possession and use of marijuana and legalizing same sex marriage.
Marijuana prohibition will end in Colorado on January 5, 2013 and we will pass a civil unions bill this year. But civil unions is not good enough, we need a bill ensuring full equality and equal protection under the law – the legalization of same sex marriage in Colorado.
Kinda telling that he hired an attorney famous for represetned guilty-as-sin clients:
Balloon Boy’s father
County to Boost Security After Anti-Fracking Activist Threats, Intimidation
(The picture–original size–accompanying the scary articles about angry fractivists upsetting tranquil Boulder…courtesy of the Heritage Foundation).
Leaving the Senate to be come president of the Heritage Foundation. What does this portend?
In this last election, Scott Gessler decided not to send “permanent” mail ballots to voters who had not voted in the 2010 election. Apparently, he had statutory authority since there was no legal challenge by the Dems.
So, now is the time to amend that legislation to insure that permanent mail ballots will always be mailed to voters, regardless of their voting history.
voters decided, when asked, to treat us all as adults. Hope we’re up to it. Less than adult behavior by too many people I am sure will lead to another amendment (to repeal A64) if that occurs
that Lane would finally stoop this low, to take Gessler as a client . . .
Like daddy always warned, “beware the company you keep, . . . you become one of them.” David’s daddy probably never gave him enough advice.
can’t be presumed to be guilty as sin. Not when bounties were paid for finding people to turn in, in a region rife with feuds.
But I do agree it’s interesting Gessler feels the need for Lane level fire power. Please, please let him be indicted and need it.
Add to the list Sen. Suzanne Williams, who didn’t even get a ticket in a fatal accident case.
He is a fine attorney and I disagree with your assessment of him representing “guilty-as-sin clients”
Specifically The Ward Churchill case was civil and your characterizing him as Guilty as sin shows the fault of your premise–the plaintiff can’t be guilty in a civil case.
The reality is Ward Churchill, although a shitty scholar, who should never have been hired, was fired for political reasons after saying something despicable. People felt he was “guilty” and should be punished. The only thing Churchill was guilty of was being a shitty insensitive professor, which last time I checked wasn’t a crime, or even a reason to fire a tenured professor, but people wanted it to be.
I, like David Lane, believe in freedom of conscience, speech and the due process necessary to protect our rights. I know that he does many cases for free (he helped out in the occupy Denver cases for free, his Guantanamo work has been free).
I will tease him about this case when i see him, I think Gessler’s conduct has been disgraceful, but does that rise to the level of crime? We shall see–that is the purpose of a criminal trial. And here is where it get’s interesting–like Ward Churchill you can be a bad person, but that doesn’t determine if your conduct rises to the level of termination in Ward’s case or Crime in Gessler’s.
David can be a media seeker, but he believes that everyone, including the most hated people deserve a robust defense.
increasingly uneasy partnership with the Tea Party, I would think. And without the Tea Party wing, what’s left?
DeMint heads Heritage and builds war chest and potent angry white fundamentalist base. As Heritage head and “noble” Sen he gets to preach & pontificate on everything that is wrong in America. This is the TeaBaggers wet dream. Also Liberty U. and all those wayward pious bible thumpers finally get a man (a white man) to get behind. He’s gonna do what Falwell, Robertson, and others never could.
I didn’t see this coming and it reads like a well cliche’d B-movie script. DeMint called his C Street experience as the best thing about Washington. C Street refers to The Fellowship (or the Family), which was the quasi-secret fundamentalist Christian group of Sens, Reps, and pols all deciphering G*d’s plan. And funny how G*d’s plan always favors white Southern Baptist guys and their golf buddies.
DeMint never could get behind anybody this go round ’cause a GOP pres woulda ruined his plans. Where once I thought he’d be happy playing kingmaker now it’s obvious he wants to be king.
This is from the article linked by BC above…
“This is an urgent time,” DeMint told the Wall Street Journal in an interview before the resignation announcement, “because we saw in the last election we were not able to communicate conservative ideas that win elections.”
They still believe it is the messengers that are failing them…not the message. They think if they get young people, Latinos, Gays, and women to deliver the message for them, it will be different next time. Could be DeMint thinks a righteous man at the top is what is needed. A man like…Jim DeMint, say…
But just like Rmoney didn’t see his huge loss coming, they can’t see – or, won’t admit – that most American voters don’t like the Republican message.
It fits well with his fundamentalism….”I have secret knowledge, I’m right, and you need to convert to my way of thinking.”
Guess he and his buddies at C Street didn’t spend much time reading the gospels, eh? About Jesus’ message.
Gessler’s conduct doesn’t need to rise to the level of a crime. The question is whether he violated the ethics provisions in the state constitution and statutes.
And David Lane may believe in freedom of conscience, speech, and due process, but he also believes in taking the highest profile cases he can find so he can get his mug in front of every camera in Colorado/US/world. He takes these big cases to get publicity to pull in the paying customers.
I’m a lawyer and I say God bless him; I don’t begrudge lawyers getting paid. Don’t much care for Mr. Lane, though.
And that is what the faculty panel found and that was why he was fired. He wasn’t fired for hating his country, it’s just that hating your country is not an affirmative defence against the demonstrable fraud that Churchill committed.
our system of justice only works when everyone has the right to representation, even people who well may be guilty as sin. We should never condemn an attorney who defends the least popular accused, whether in criminal or civil cases. Certainly Lane and all the attorneys who did the same are to be commended, not condemned, for taking on Gitmo cases. I just think it’s interesting that Gessler thinks he needs such a high power defender. I hope it means he’s in a tighter spot than is immediately apparent.
Agree about Churchill. The morons who hired him without anything close to proper vetting are the ones who ought to have been fired. If he hadn’t made such unpopular comments, they wouldn’t have gone looking for reasons to fire him. As crappy as the quality of his research may have been, I think we all know that he was fired for those remarks and the everything that followed was to find an acceptable reason. Even schmucks have a right to the best representation they can get.
I just hope David charges Gessler all the market will bear, and a bit extra for good measure.
They wanted to fire him and they went looking for a reason.
His scholarship was poor, but fraud is a stretch. There tenure committee felt there was crappy scholarship, but that it didn’t rise to the level of termination. The Regents overruled the determination of the faculty panel. That is what was political.
The problem was “selective” prosecution. If all tenured faculty were subjected to the same kind of scrutiny as Churchill, then we could have determined if others were as guilty as he and established some kind of standard.
The assumption is that peer review is the way to get at research fraud.
Now, didn’t a jury in Denver reward Churchill back his job? I can’t remember the whole scenario, but I think that the judge overruled the jury verdict and Lane appealed and lost. Again, I could be wrong.
1. not criminal
2. media hound
It took me time to warm up to David, but I now I see his virtues within the context of his vices.
(What would John Galt do?)
. . . I’m sure Scott will be grateful to pay a big fee.
She sent out mail ballots to all registered voters in the last mail-in election. I think she prevailed in court.
Again, my memory of the court facts could be hazy.
But Debra Johnson did sue and I think she should run for Secretary of State.
Jury awarded him $1. Reinstatement is an equitable remedy and not in the jury’s hands. The judge vacated the $1 award and declined to order him reinstated, saying the university had quasi-judicial immunity. The court of appeals and supreme court affirmed.
A state legislator just told me that there will be legislation introduced this session to:
1) insure voters still receive a mail ballot even if they miss an election; and,
2) allow election day voter registration.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.