President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 29, 2015 06:37 AM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 57 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“I think we consider too much the good luck of the early bird and not enough the bad luck of the early worm.”

–Franklin D. Roosevelt

Comments

57 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread

    1. If we had to lose one today, we lost the right one.  Coal is the new walking dead.  The only real war on the fuel is geology and even a SCOTUS decision like this can’t fix ‘geology’: we've already mined the coal that is shallow and cheap.  The majority of us understand that we aren't going to create a robust 21st-century economy with dinosaur poop.  The baby Jesus hid it below the crust so we wouldn't find it – and in return gave us expotentially more energy from above and the brains to figure out how to capture it. The recent decision by FERC in the DMEA petition is just more good news that coal is in its final days. 

      If you want to see what a 'coal economy' looks like, all you need to do is travel to McConnell's Kentucky.  I think the rest of us are smart enough to choose a very different future.

      1. Not really; this extends to everything the EPA does. EPA now has to do Cost-Benefit Analysis on every substance it wants to regulate. And from my reading of this, they have to do so early on in the process, before they set the regulations.

        The complexity of doing such an analysis on systems such as CO2 for global warming are enormous, and industry now has a powerful tool to dispute any such analysis. Just MHO. 5-4 with the conservatives vs. the more liberal members of the Court, so I suppose it could be revisited should a Democrat win the 2016 election and we wind up with a more liberal Court.

        1. I somewhat agree on both accounts, but the market is fixing our 'coal' problem.  Solar is nearing grid parity almost everywhere; wind is already cheaper and we're drowning in natural gas.  Energy efficiency is a magnitude of order cheaper than even 'cheap coal' – and John Q. Public almost everywhere is embracing a new future. 

          To your point on the liberal court: yes.  There is already enough inertia in the system to keep us on the path to a clean energy future.  Sure, McConnell and Boehner will keep promoting the 19th-century fuel source as long as the industry keeps the money flowing to CapHill. Every one of these companies are bleeding red ink and that's not going to change anytime soon.

          1. One thing wrong with the Fortune reference written in 2014:

            "Since then, pressure on oil companies has built steadily, culminating in oil giant Royal Dutch Shell's recent decision to stop funding its Arctic exploration in 2014, and increase its dividend payment to investors instead."

             

            They've reversed that decision:

            Shell's Arctic oil rig departs Seattle as 'kayaktivists' warn of disaster

            http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/15/seattle-kayak-activists-detained-blocking-shell-arctic-oil-rig

             

            Nevertheless, it is still time to divest.

            And while you’re at it:
            Does a Pistol Belong in Your Stock Portfolio?

            http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/your-money/does-a-pistol-belong-in-your-stock-portfolio.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

      2. Yes, they may not be very well off but they have their guns, their Bible, their complete collection of Zac Brown CDs, and no Obamacare!

          1. The Arizona Legislature challenged the redistricting commission based on Article 1 Sec. 4 Clause 1, which reads "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators." Basically, except where Congress has laid out some rules, State Legislatures determine how elections go down in their state. 

            What Arizona was arguing is that since the people themselves voted for an independent commission to determine districts, it took away from their right as the legislature to regulate elections since they had no say in how the districts where people stand for elections were drawn. 

             

            Now, in Colorado, TABOR is being challenged on Article 4 Sec. 4 Clause 1, which reads "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,"

            What the TABOR lawsuit folks are arguing is that Republican form of government means elected representatives in legislative bodies, and an essential function of legislative bodies in a Republican form of government is the power to tax. Since TABOR gives the power to tax to the people by means of a direct vote of the people, the argument is that it takes away an essential function of a Republican form of government, and is thus a violation of Article 4 Sec. 4 Clause 1.  

            1. The ruling, however, was on the meaning of "legislature" in the Constitution. As the TABOR challenge directly goes to "Republican form", i.e. "legislature", this ruling is, if not directly applicable, then a strong indicator of where the Court would side on such a challenge.

              1. But as Orange points out, the question is slightly different based on the requirement for small "r" republican form of government. I agree it would be a stretch for the same reasons sited by Justice Kagan in this case. It would open a can of worms on the huge number of laws already passed by referenda in states across the nation instead of  through the people's representative  elected state legislators. Would this Court be willing to do that? More to the point would Kennedy?  I don't think so.

              2. I suppose it boils down to Arizona being a question on who has authority over elections specifically, and TABOR is a question over who has authority over the basic functions and actions of government in general in a Republican Form of Government as defined. 

            2. Thanks, Orange and Phoenix.

              So what would this mean for a state like Mississippi, in which every district has been drawn like "a drunk quilter", according to a Mississippian friend?

              The intent in MS was clearly to keep black folks from voting, or from their votes counting for much in their state legislature. Does this ruling mean that, if they are able to put together a redistricting commission, then that commission will have the power to do the work, outside of their legislature?

              If Mississippi is "backward", which by most objective measures it is, it's important to realize that that was intentional, and if this decision means that intent can be reversed, that's a good thing.

            3. Orange, they can try an Art. 4 challenge, but that ol' hound ain't never caught a rabbit. It was tried it to stop TABOR from passing in the first place. It was tried to stop term-limits, and I can't remember what all else. The rulings always come down that those are political rather than constitutional questions

              1. Yeah, I'm not saying there going to get anywhere with it, I'm just saying the comparison with Arizona is different because they're based on different constitutional premises. 

    1. In a somewhat related ruling, KS SOS Kobach and the State of Arizona were denied an appeal to the Court over requiring proof of citizenship for voting. Federal voting registration requirements are controlled by the Federal government. Still.

    2. Frankly, for Democrats, this is the biggest win of the session.  Had the court ruled for the Arizona legislature, not only would commissions have been taken out of the process, but Governors would have as well.  This would have allowed Republicans for many years to come to continue to control legislatures in the states that can and have been Gerrymandered to give them almost permanent control of the US House (Wis, Ohio, Mich, Fla, Va, NC).

      1. Fully agree, Craig.  I didn't want to lose either the Michigan v. EPA or this, but if we had to lose one I think we ended up with the long straw this morning.

    3. It honestly confuses me how this was 5-4 and not 9-0. There's tons of precedent that concludes that – except when it violates one person, one vote or compactness – redistricting is a political process that the court wants no part of. 

      strange times, indeed.

      1. Because the challenge wasn't to redistricting per se, but whether or not a State could put authority in redistricting in some body other than the Legislature, which is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. A commission isn't the Legislature.

        The Court's 5-4 ruling is that a citizen initiative is a legislative process, and hence the choice to delegate redistricting to a commission and have it draw the lines is also "the Legislature" as far as the Constitution goes.

  1. Many thanks for all the good news to swing vote Kennedy. Lots of 5-4 decisions that could have gone the other way. Too bad he was bamboozled by the wing nut crowd on Citizens United and some other terrible 5-4s.

    1. Many thanks to President Obama for appointing Kagan and Sotomayor. 

      As most people on this site know, the real advantage of electing a Democrat as president is to make Supreme Court appointments.  We need to remind the Bernie Sanders supporters of these two numbers:  5-4. 

      We cannot afford to lose this upcoming election.  Period.

      1. Agreed….some of those on the left who are punch drunk on the blue Koolaid and go off about corporate DINOs being no different that Republicans need to remember that it was a Democratic Leadership Council guy named Clinton who named Ginsberg and Breyer to the Supreme Court.

        I wonder if Daddy Bush would have appointed them had he been re-elected. Probably not….

        1. ummmm… take it from my greatest gen Jewish mom, still super smart and following news and politics closely…  At this juncture an old socialist Jewish man is not going to be elected president. Of this country, anyway. Sorry. Not gonna happen. But that doesn't mean Bernie isn't doing a lot of good, applying pressure. 

      2. True but for the time being, it's Kennedy casting the deciding vote on issue after issue and he could have voted the other way on all the 5-4s we like. Let's hope we can elect another Dem Prez who can appoint another couple of justices to join Obama's appointees so these don't always have to be such nail biters.

    1. Because to old white gawd-feerin righties, "black" Christians — like black lives themselves — aren't "real" people or "real" Christians to begin with, and are thus rendered meaningless and of no import. And we all know who owns the “librul” mainstream media…

    1. So sorry all of you folks that wanted to fund religious schools with public money. 

      Which includes the Denver Post Editorial Board (or at least Vincent Carroll, I presume).

      Even their "news" article was sympathetic in my online edition this morning — the headline indicated that "School Choice" had been shot down by the court. Nothing about vouchers for religious schools defeated until you dug into the article (where it was reported that more that 90% of the money was for religious private schools).  

      Way to slant the news Chuck Plunkett!

      I checked their website just now and the headline has been adjusted for balance:  "Colorado Supreme Court rejects Douglas County voucher program", possibly in response to the online reader poll that indicate 61% believe the Colorado Supreme Court got it exactly right 🙂

  2. It's been almost 72 hours since the GOP ex comm meeting on Friday at which (to use Moderatus' words) "the truth would come out." Has any one heard or seen from Moddy since then. 

    It's also been three days since the same sex marriage decision came down. Perhaps he turned into a pillar of salt like Lott's wife.

      1. I think that when we speculate about someone's sexual orientation, that it goes over the line into being abusive. You do what you want – I have no authority over you. But I'm just sayin'.

        1. Not speculation at all, and not in any way over the line. Merely pointing out how often those "protesting" so loudly and vehemently are usually the same ones with either the most to gain from or the most to hide related to whatever it is that they object to so strenuously — whatever the topic. (See: "overcompensation.") Nothing more, nothing less. I take nothing back. The PC police can chill. Just sayin.’

        2. Oh and, not that I have anything to "explain" or justify to you, ever — because you're right; you have no authority over me whatsoever, nor are you my "mama" or my conscience — but everything I've ever had the misfortune to read from the mudster has indicated that he is only a straight white older male (like most republicans). So hardly a crack I would ever make about someone I ever thought might actually be gay or lesbian, dont'cha think? Relax.

          1. I'm quite relaxed, thanks. I've got adult kids of my own, students of other people's, and feel no need to mother any adult, much less you. However, I'll still feel very free to post when I think you, or anyone is "over the line" of civil conversation. The decline of civility in political discourse goes both ways.

            Posters are constantly correcting me, usually on  minor points of fact. I take it in the spirit it was given. Try it sometime. 

      2. Moddy has reappeared on this blog, as all must have noticed by now. In that sense he's out as in back out to play here but with no more details about the promised truth. Oh and he actually thinks it was House who was let off the hook in the Friday meeting he promised would spell triumph and dominion for his blonde goddess/queen/idol. Seriously.That's how delusional he is. They do say love is blind.

    1. Pretty sure Moddy was partaking of the 3 day orgy of ignorance, hate and delusional rationalizations justifying same.  IIRC, he also has a morning job, so expect him to show up any time now.

      Good chance AC was also in attendance.  

  3. Interesting new development from SCOTUS:

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to temporarily block parts of a strict new Texas abortion law.

    The court granted a request by women's health providers, which had asked the court to temporarily put on hold a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from June 9. The groups asked the high court to put the provisions on hold until they can file a formal petition asking the justices to take the case. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/29/texas-abortion-restrictions_n_7690656.html

    So at least the clinics won't be forced to close for the time being.  Still to be decided is if the court will actually take the case next year, and if so which way they will rule. 

    All I'll predict is a 5-4 decision, with Kennedy as the swing vote one way or the other.

      1. Scalia, Thomas and Alito's minority opinions were practically unhinged in their rancor, bringing disgrace upon themselves for their immature attacks on the dignity of the court and their peers.

        1. Jiggery-pokery, apple sauce, gobbledygook. I wonder if Scalia has considered how his written opinions are going to compare to the majestic opinions of past SCOTUS greats. The smallest, meanest, least dignified of Supreme Court figures by far.

    1. Kennedy has to decide what constitutes an undue burden.  

      To me, it seems like for a burden to be due, it must provide some real countervailing benefit, otherwise it is undue.  In SCOTUS jurisprudence, it seems undue means only plausibly beneficial.

      1. Since the only official justification for these onerous regulations is "for the benefit of the woman's health", have there been any studies showing a statistical difference between health clinics that meet these standards vs. the "non"-compliant clinics?

        Of course that totally ignores the non-abortion related services that are denied women by the forced closing of these clinics, should Texas (and other states) prevail.  That obviously cannot meet the stated purpose of the law to benefit a woman's health.

        1. Studies show abortion is safer than penicillin shots and dental extractions which are routinely performed in facilities which aren't required to meet these restrictions.

          1. I think you may be making the wrong comparison (or your source did). A more apt comparison would be to other outpatient surgery centers. These onerous regs are comparable to hospital surgery suites.

            1. I don't know if I agree with you, cook. I think it is an apt comparison, considering these are all medical procedures. I don't know how an abortion procedure is performed, but when I had my wisdom teeth removed it was in a regular dental office, and I was given something that knocked me out for the duration of the procedure and left me loopy the rest of the day. It certainly wasn't a specialized medical center like the texas law requires.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

69 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!