CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

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) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

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%↑

35%↓

30%↑

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
February 13, 2016 03:16 PM UTC

BREAKING: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dies

  • 178 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE #4: President Obama makes simple, clear, impossible-to-argue statement on Scalia vacancy:

 —–

UPDATE #3: As the Washington Post reports, Scalia’s death may strengthen the conservative ideological case for Ted Cruz as the GOP nominee for President.

—–

UPDATE #2: The passing of Justice Scalia could very well ensure that President Obama’s Climate Plan will move forward. From New York magazine:

The immediate and easily foreseeable impact is staggering. Last week, the Supreme Court issued a stay delaying the implementation of Obama’s Clean Power Plan. The stay indicated that a majority of the justices foresee a reasonably high likelihood that they would ultimately strike down Obama’s plan, which could jeopardize the Paris climate agreement and leave greenhouse gasses unchecked. Without Scalia on the Court, the odds of this drop to virtually zero. The challenge is set to be decided by a D.C. Circuit panel composed of a majority of Democratic appointees, which will almost certainly uphold the regulations. If the plan is upheld, it would require a majority of the Court to strike it down. With the Court now tied 4-4, such a ruling now seems nearly impossible.

—–

UPDATE: Politico has more on the broader political implications of Scalia’s death:

Scalia, widely regarded as the intellectual leader of the court’s conservative wing, was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to the Supreme Court in 1986…

…Obama is expected to face fierce — if not insurmountable — resistance in the Senate to any nominee that he might put forth, especially given the heightened political conversation around the presidential election.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has power to prevent confirmation of any nominee, made clear within hours of the first reports of Scalia’s death that Obama should not try to make a nomination before he leaves office next January.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,” McConnell said.

That’s a pretty weak excuse, Senator. The American people don’t have a say in the selection of Supreme Court justices, which is exactly what our Founding Fathers intended.

So, uh, what happens if when Senate Republicans refuse to act and allow the Supreme Court to move forward?

Scalia’s death leaves the court split, 4-4, between Democratic and Republican-appointed justices. That could result in a deadlock on contentious cases before the court, including disputes over Obama’s executive actions on immigration, state laws restricting access to abortion and whether public-sector workers can be required to pay representation fees to unions.

In situations where the court is evenly split, the lower court ruling being appealed is upheld but no precedent is set for future cases. The court could put or keep stays in place in some cases until a new justice allows it to reach a majority opinion.

In other words: Chaos!

It’s bad enough that the current Republican Congress has been historically worthless in terms of actual governing. Now Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wants to spread this impotence to the Supreme Court, too?

The next time McConnell or any of his GOP Senate colleagues start talking about the importance of “following the Constitution,” go ahead and stick a finger in each ear while softly humming to yourself.

—–

scalia

Stand by for updates, multiple news outlets confirming that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died suddenly at age 79.

Tweet
Share

Comments

178 thoughts on “BREAKING: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dies”

    1. Do you know I just heard it on the car radio on my home and that was the first phrase that popped into my head. The next thing that occured to me was that even though I'm very pleased to see him gone from the court, he is a human being with friends and family who love him and I won't pretend I'll miss him but I do respect the feelings of those who will and sympathize with them for their personal loss. 

    2. I can always count on Pols to leave their class at the door. The man hasn't even been buried, show some respect. Your about as classy as the Donald, and that is saying something.

        1. Not necessarily in that order. Also Pols made no derogatory comment at all. ColPols does not control the comments left here. Lucky for some of the rightie morons who post here.

        2. His comment was fine, but truly, ding done the witch is dead about a master jurist?

          Not suprising though, coming from advocates of the leftit's Trump, aka Bernie Sanders.

          1. I'm not a Bernie Sanders supporter but please do not compare him to Donald Trump. Sanders may be (IMHO) a little too far left wing but he doesn't behave like Trump. Sanders is an intelligent and principled advocate – pretty much the opposite of Trump.

            1. Both are traffick in populist rhetoric, both base their entire political philosophy upon the demonization of the "Other," both want massive increases in social spending and promise the moon and the stars with no cost to the electorate (Trump's wall, deportation force, return of American dominance overseas= Sen. Sanders Free College for All, Single Payer, 15.00 an hour), and both have immigration plans that will make the United States less strong, less dynamic, and less diverse. There is no difference between the two.

              2. Show me where Sanders has "demonized the Other".  An analysis of how the top 1% has taken most of the wealth generated in this country, evaded taxes, and outsourced jobs is factual. It's not demonizing anything.

                I have yet to hear Sanders say (as Trump has) that someone should be under suspicion  of criminality or barred from immigration because of religious beliefs or their country of origin.

                Trump's and Sanders immigration plans are in no way equivalent.

                I could go on, but you won't read or click on any links I put up, as you're entrenched in your position and not open to any facts contradicting it.  So, I'll just repeat what Duke said:

                You, Tommy, are completely full of shit.

            2. Sanders behaves more like Ted Cruz.  If Cruz is to the right of right then Sanders is to the left of left and while accurate in decrying the injustice of inequality is offering up Utopian solutions that have little chance of ever being enacted in the four to eight years of a presidency the same way Cruz is feeding his base with Utopian dreams of demolishing the Affordable Care Act and outlawing reproductive choice.  I like Sanders passion but his solutions aren't tenable in the current political reality.  Obviously I'm caucusing for Mrs. Clinton and the chance of a continued steady hand at the national tiller.

              1. yes   …… for the most part.

                You're right on the money about right of right and left of left. And about promising a Utopian vision which is unrealistic. 

                But I don't think Sanders takes the same slash-and-burn approach that Rafael takes. He hasn't alienated his colleagues to the point where any of them have labeled him a "wacko bird" like John McCain called Cruz & Co.

                1. Maybe he is more like Trump in that he is using the Democratic Party for his person advancement in the same way that Trump is using the Republican Party.  I know he is doing it for the greater glory of mankind but the fact is he views the Democratic Party as the enemy and is kind of renting out their activists because he couldn't get elected as a socialist.  Very opportunistic politician.

      2. Who's this moron? Andrew Carnage's best friend?

        Back from my mini-boycott of ColPols because they hadn't put up Bernie on the Big Line. I'll take the 25% line and bet $100 he'll win it all.

        Anyways, yeah, when  people want me to say something good about Scalia. So I say this:

        Scalia's dead? Good.

         

        EDIT: Check this out! https://berniesanders.com/press-release/huge-turnout-in-denver/ – 18,000 Coloradans flock to see Bernie. Clinton can’t even beat that, and she’s here too.

        1. ACtuually, DP, Bernie was always on the big line, you just had to click the full line.  Now enough candidates are out that Bernie is above the fold.  So your boycott was pointless though a nice vacation from your usual balderdashsad

        2. dustpuppy: you, sir, are presenting yourself as a moron. Saying "good" at the news someone has passed is an epitome of lacking in class, other than low class. Something good about the late Justice?  He did remark at one time that there was not an absolute right, under the 2nd Amendment, to own firearms. A careful check of his voting record and speeches will likely find other good points. No one, excepting mass murderers, is totally lacking in either good or bad.   C.H.B. 

           

          1. I have nothing better to say about Scalia and for his rotten decision you made. Thank you for confirming your politics, so I can mentally ignore you.

            He has caused a lot of grief, and you choose to fucking pick the 2nd Amendment rights? Let me clue you in: I hate guns. I have a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment – that it is restricted to organized militia, which means like the U.S. military agencies (USAF, Army, Navy, Coast Guard).. Bernie said that our local police are overmilitarized, and I agree. It's time to demilitiarize our local law enforcement and use community policing. Simple as that.

            I know you're not for Bernie, and I don't care. He'll be your eventual President, because you have to even admit that none of the clowns on your end of the spectrum qualifies to breathe oxygen, much less than controlling the nuclear football.

            Have a nice weekend, sir!

            1. Thank you. I am having a nice long weekend, now that you mention it. "He'll be your eventual President……"   Nice wet dream for you. 

              I need to confirm my politics?  What part of "Conservative Head Banger" don't you understand? 

              1. Actually your nome de blog confuses me.  Are you a conservative who bangs liberal heads or do you bang conservative heads?  You strike me as the kind of moderate Republican I was for 33 years before switching parties in 2009.  

      3. Tommy – I haven't seen your writing before but welcome to this little literary club and thanks for posting what appears to be a conservative viewpoint no matter how fucked up it is.  My mom passed away in January after spending 11 days in a hospice center (staffed by saints or angels) and agree with you that it was inappropriate to start off what is going to be a hot topic for multiple hours or days with a classless comment without regard to those friends and family who will have the reality of never seeing him alive again.  The loss is real and painful even if you know it is going to happen and can spend days by /her bedside kneading the muscles in her arms and toes and telling stories of her 91 years of adventure and how remarkable she was with her friends and family.  It so confusing not knowing whether you should be laughing or crying or how much deeper could your gratitude be for someone who was a wonderful example for you across your lifetime and you will never ever again be able to ask them how they are doing or what happened the day dad stopped racing pigeons.  Totally classless at the beginning but maybe down thread in the comments when the conversation turns to Scalia's role in the bastardization and politicalization of the Supreme Court and end of his odious tenure than some kind of profound hallelujan would probably be not only acceptable but maybe mandatory.  I’m glad the Supreme Court has an immediate opening for open minded and reasonable person who can listen to both sides of an issue and come to a rational conclusion.  World is a better place today because of this opportunity.  I’m also glad that I had a great mom that I could get along with and who inspired me with her enjoyment of living. Welcome aboard Tommy and don't disappoint us with your writing chops.

  2. Wow.  Talk about a free for all.  No doubt Republicans will go ALL to prevent Obama from making a 3rd Supreme Court appointment.  And the Sanders supporters will grouse that it wasn't a liberal enough choice.  Bernie would have done it better.

  3. The electorate is going to get as very quick lesson in why it is important to select well for POTUS. Unfortunately, I the discussion is to be guns and abortion

    1. And originalism which I can't help but feel our revolutionary forefathers would have little use for. I don't believe they felt that their time should be preserved in amber any more than they wanted to be stuck in the amber of their own time's past. They knew that the future would be different and they seemed to be pretty damned fond of change and progress.

    2. Republicans have done a great job Swift Boating Mrs. Clinton to the point that for most people the first thought when her name comes up is a negative one.  The good news is that they can't find anymore dirt to throw at her that is going to stick.  All of her skeletons are out of the closet.

      Wait till Republicans get done Swift Boating Senator Sanders as the tax happy socialist who honeymooned in the U.S.S.R.  You're probably going to hate him even more than you do Mrs. Clinton.  A lot more.

      1. Is this shit just reflex in Clintonia?  I'm trying not to be overwhelmed by the irony of thinking that a dude who has the word "socialist" in his handle would be distraught by a candidate "smeared" as a tax happy socialist by the right.

        Also, I don't hate Hillary.  She's an intelligent, capable, and accomplished woman.  I have an intense dislike for her arrogance and tendency to lash out first and think later in the face of opposition.  Tendencies I've noted among some of her supporters as well.

        2. I noticed the same thing among the true believers among the Sanders supporters.  Anybody who is for Clinton is some kind of a sell out and only Sanders supporters are real progressives.  I find that kind of condescension all the time over at DailyKos.  Your disdain for Clinton supporters is your bag but that doesn't make you a better progressive.

        3. As far as your "Clinton's a bitch" argument, Republican operatives around the country must be celebrating that Sanders supporters are echoing their talking points.  Maybe she isn't someone that you would want to have a beer with but our last beer drinking buddy was a disaster.  I respect Mrs. Clinton for her involvement in getting us out of Iraq and being in charge of a major federal agency like the State Department and as a senator for one of the largest states in the Union.  She might be a bitch to you but I think she is very qualified to serve both the country and progressive causes.

          1. I'm amazed at the extent to which you know me so well– my "disdain for Clinton supporters," me thinking "Clinton's a bitch," my echoing of  Republican "talking points" rather than expressing long-developed opinions. that the most recent president who I'd have a beer with is anyone other than Obama, who I significantly disagree with, but I think is a good person: unless I'm misunderstanding you and it's him you think is a disaster.

            You should vote for exactly the candidate you believe is the best one.  Your vote is your voice.

            1. I guess you weren't around when Bush was campaigning in 2000 and everyone was talking about how he was a good old boy that you would want to have a beer with rather Mr. Stiff Al Gore.  My apologies if my political references weren't given with better context.

              I would be honored to have a beer with Obama anytime.  Obama has governed with a class as a real Democrat that Sanders will never achieve even if Sanders delivers Liberal Utopia on day one which call me heretic but I seriously doubt is going to happen even if 'It's a Movement'.

  5. As a quibble, a journalism professor once told me that everyone dies quickly.  Some also died unexpectedly, as Scalia did. And the world of American  politics has changed just as quickly.  Anyone know a 35 year old Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Lawrence Tribe?

    1. Obama should nominate a liberal Republican if he can find one. They won't confirm him or her but it will further divide the GOP. Like Nixon's nomination of Haynesworth and Carswell.

          1. Wasn't Harriet pro-choice? Although she looked a little puzzled when questioned about Roe v. Wade.

            I was actually thinking of someone like a younger version of former Gov. Bill Weld of Massachusetts. Weld was such a liberal Republican that when Bill Clinton tried to name him ambassador to Mexico, the GOP-controlled foreign relations committee rejected him.

            Question:  Does Susan Collins have a law degree?

            2. You mean the constantly courted moderate Susan Collins who always raised hopes and threw the other side of the aisle the occasional vote when it didn't matter much but went along with her conservative leadership when the chips were down like a good little Republican soldier? That Susan Collins?

              1. The very one.  Politically Susan Collins, in the words of an old Socialist jibe , was A pacifust between wars and a vegetarian between meals.   The line was. Scott Nearings about a Socialist who supprted Wilson in Ww1.  I forget the target, but what a great insultsmiley

              2. Yes, that Collins. Because they wouldn't actually confirm her because despite her carrying water for the right wing when push came to shove, they still wouldn't trust her and would rather keep the seat open until President Trump or President Cruz could select a suitably conservative successor.

      2. Liberal Republicans no longer exist. The Rockefellers are Dems now. There are no New York liberal R Senators like Senator Javits was back in the day. The only true center right pols are Dems now and there are  loads of them. Long gone are the days when Ike could run as a Republican calling himself a liberal and giving strong support to labor and the unions. He'd be to the left of most elected Dems today.

        If Rs want to wait until the next President as Voyageur pointed out a 4/4 tie leaves the lower court ruling standing and they shouldn't count on getting a Republican prez next time just yet. Another interesting and unpredicted wrinkle in this most bizarre US presidential election cycle of all time.

  6. Obama  has nothing to lose. He doesn't need to appease the crazies. The Supreme Court must make decisions – it's in session until July, then on again in October. The court's business can't wait for all of the partisan drama to play out. A moderate judge will be chosen.

    GG, please don't presume to know what "Sanders supporters will say". You have no idea, since we're a diverse group, any more than I can predict what "moderate Dems will say".

    The President's negotiating skills with Congress' various factions will be key. No matter who the President is. Sanders has actually proven to be a very skilled negotiator in his 30 years in Congress.

    Anybody who looked at Scalia saw a heart attack waiting to happen. I won't pretend that I'm sad he's gone. He was a hateful bigot who was unworthy of his position.  

    2. My apologies mama for lumping you in with the acolytes over at DailyKos.

      We ridicule the right for their infatuation with the most conservative candidate they can find in the vain belief that all will be well because their candidate is most conservative possible and a shoo-in to be elected based on his inviolate truths but ignore that criticism when dealing with the same situation among progressives.  Sanders has added a lot to this campaign season but is still the Ted Cruz of the left and the belief that he will absolutely win because the general population will adore his solutions is a stretch.

      1. I can't hold still for the comparison between Sanders and Cruz. Most everyone who knows Sanders(R and D alike) agrees that he's a pleasant enough fellow, even if they disagree with his ideals. Cruz, OTOH, has managed to piss off pretty much the entirety of the Senate and the House, and the Reps don't even have to see him every day as Senators must. Even Cruz's fellows on the right side of the aisle can't abide the man. He's smug, arrogant and too clever by half- and those are the nice things they say about him.  

        1. What are you doing up at midnight?  Posting usually drives my heartrate up and is the anti-Insomnia?

          My reference isn't in regards to his pleasantness.  Sanders has positioned himself to the left of Mrs. Clinton the same way that Senator Cruz has tried to position himself to the right of his competitors.  They are both running on a platform that says their more centrist candidates aren't pure enough and only they can rescue their respective parties from the malaise of establishment candidates.  They both promise all kinds of Utopian outcomes because voters are going to come out in droves for someone who is purer than the rest of the pack because being towards the center of our political spectrum is the worst thing that a candidate can be.

        2. Then the depressing thought hits me that your up reading blogs that late to put you to sleep like I listen to piano lullabies on Spotify and what you read are my posts.  Yikes!

          I didn't think my writing had that effect on folks.  Well if it works than I'm glad to be of some benefit even if it crushes my self-esteem.  laugh

          PS: Bedtime piano is also has some good playlists.  Not a fan of the natural sound stuff.  I have all the natural sounds I can handle having the wind blow down off the Divide at 60-90mph.

              1. How can it not be about purity Duke?  His entire argument against her is that she has corporate connections therefore she is tainted.  This is a guy who joined the Democratic Party for the singular intent of using it and dividing it to the point that he could get a better job.  His entire divide & conquer strategy is based on depicting Mrs. Clinton as unworthy because she had dealings with corporations.  That sure looks like a purity argument to me.  You can debate the validity of his accusations but he is most definitely saying that he is the only true Progressive just like Cruz is saying he is the only true Conservative.

                1. This is a guy who joined the Democratic Party for the singular intent of using it and dividing it to the point that he could get a better job.  His entire divide & conquer strategy is based on depicting Mrs. Clinton as unworthy because she had dealings with corporations.  

                  I get the impression that you doubt Bernies' sincerity. I don't believe, as you suggest, that this is all about politics. Bernie genuinely wants to fix the imbalance and inequity in our society, and isn't doing this to "get a better job"

                  I might add, " dealings with corporations"  doesn't quite describe Hillarys' tight relationship with the Titans of Wall Street.

                  In my view, Hillarys' very cozy and profitable relationship with the monsterbanks is a serious liability. Her claim that all that money doesn't affect her decision making process is absurd on its face.

                  It is about access..it is about to whom the candidate listens. Hillary is too close …and as Bernie says…"you can't fix a broken system by taking its money." I have believed that to be true ever since I supported Andrew Romanoff in his primary bid against "Thurston".

                  I am sorry I don't fit the mold you are trying to squeeze all Sanders supporters into. We are not all dewey-eyed millenials who are called, Pied Piper like, to march mindlessly into the sea.

                  This might be a good time for Secretary Clintons' supporters to re-evaluate their positions…

                   

                  .

                  1. Sounds like you supported Dennis Kucinich too and Gene McCarthy.

                    So you agree that Sanders is playing the Progressive Purity card but you truly believe that he isn't a politician trying to manipulate the Democratic Party for his political career.  And you accuse the Clintonistas of wearing blinders.  Interesting.

                    1. No, GG…I didn't support either one of those gents. Blinders..? I don't know if I would characterize it that way…I think they are looking through a filter and are not seeing clearly….time will tell.

  7. Please note that in the event of a 4-4  tie, the lower court ruling — mostly by Democratic appointed judges, stands.  With RBG, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer in our corner, we can afford to hold out for a fifth moderate.  [Voyageur winces in pain as he dislocates his shoulder from patting himself on the back for posting the first strategic message on this threadwink]

      1. Voyageur: it all depends on the case before the court. I wouldn't count Kennedy as automatically on the conservative side. There may be some 5-3 decisions. 

        Also depending on the case, one can’t know where Roberts will come in either.

        1. Voyageur is counting him as part of the 4/4. They only have 5 when he votes with the conservatives. That made 5 including Scalia. Scalia is gone. Do the math.

          1. Let me explain this carefully for you. Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan = 4. If Kennedy or Roberts were to join them in a case, that makes 5-3.

            1. Yes. 5/3 for the liberal side. Since Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan equal 4 liberals that means there can no longer be anything better than 4/4 tie for the conservative side. Kennedy can no longer swing it to 5 for the conservative side. He can only, at best, make 4 with Scalia gone. 

              Voyageur is correct that in that case a challenged lower court ruling stands and currently that tilts in the direction of  the more liberal lower court rulings standing, though not setting precedent, in the face of conservative challenges. Your example supports rather than weakens Voyageurs quite correct assessment. Of course 5/3 is still possible. Along with 6/2, 7/1 or even 8/0. Just not for the conservative rulings most important to 21st century GOP wackos. The best attainable there is a tie.

               

  8. McConnell has stated that the appointment should wait for the election.  Fuck that.  This is a critical element of our national government.  Obama should wait for two weeks after the funeral, give a nice speech about Scalia, and present his nomination.  If Yertle wants to block the road, feel free, but we have business to do.

  9. Because the stakes are so high

    This is a stark reminder why we.Dem do not have the luxury of indulging in a democratic socialist fantasy.

     This seat will remain empty until January. We need to hold the White House and pick up at least 4 Senate seats.

    1. Is it possible for Hillary supporters to suggest that their candidate is a better choice without the condescension that's so often on display here?  I understand that being arrogantly dismissive of dissent, clinging to a notion of "realism" as the sine qua non of political discernment, and lecturing to us unwashed masses about how much better off we'd be if we  just understood  is your candidate's shtick, but it doesn't make arguments more valid or persuasive.

      4. Having said my piece…from a practical political perspective, I believe Bernie's chances died with Scalia.  The chunk of his support that's liberals finally feeling like they have voice is going to fragment in the face of the idea that Hillary is conservative enough to outmatch pretty much anyone the 'Pubs put forth.  Hell, I find myself wondering if I might vote for Bennett with the "prize" truly in sight.

        Can we get a parliamentary system instead, please?

        1. Excellent point, Socialisticat. There could be a significant strategic downside for Republicans should they block any nomination before the election. 

          1. Spot on. I've been watching this all weekend, and I'm convinced that the obstructionism the Repubs are planning (holding the Court at 4-4 until after the General Election) is an albatross Dems can hang about their rivals' necks to great effect. I probably won's swing Congress to the Dems, but it sure can be a great issue for Dems to campaign on: "…their ideology is stronger than their patriotic interest in seeing government work as it ought."

        2. Bernie's chance remains excellent, even with Scalia's death. 4-4 ties keeps the lower courts decision.  The need for Clinton becomes less and much more less after Scalia's death. We do not need another corporate judge in the Supreme Court. We need a truly independent-minded justice that leans to the left but stays impartial.

          It's only fair after 30 years of Scalia's dung we get our turn to put a diamaterically opposite justice in.

          1. Bernie's chance remains excellent

            Didn't you also predict that the Dems would hold the U.S. Senate and retake the U.S. House in Nov. '14? Your predictions have not always been on the mark, Dust Puppy.

            1. So I did. I was wrong at that time. That's why I was quiet and doing other stuff, like working for Bernie. I'm not seeing anything going for Clinton here in my little area of Denver, but plenty of Bernie stickers all over, and signs are starting to spring up for Bernie.

              Not one single sign or sticker for Clinton. One Ready for Hillary sticker, but the question is, are they really ready for Clinton or waiting for a better candidate?

              This one is a easy call – Bernie represents us Coloradans.

               

        3. Before Hillary folks start popping bottles and raising the roof, one other thought occurs…

          A similar dynamic is likely to cause some of Trump's support to gravitate toward others in the party.  Partly, I think, because of pragmatism about electability, but also over concerns about getting "Soutered" by a Trump pick. The fact that a large portion of the Republican party just learned that they were on watch during 9-11 and that their guy lied us into war last night, courtesy of TRUMP™, may accelerate that process.

          What this means for the general is anyone's guess.  MIne, however, is that either this pushes the governors forward in the primaries (electability), or, I think more likely, this becomes the nomination of Rafael Cruz, eh.

          Hillary's case is that her chances increase the crazier the GOP nominee is.  I think that the open spot on the Court gets moderate conservatives (Rs and Is) who would otherwise be horrified by Cruz, but who like the more "measured" approach of the Court, to vote for him instead of Clinton.

          I think this will be a turnout war, folks.  Don't lose.

          1. Agree the general, like everything else this election year, is anyone's guess but the power of Dem super delegates makes Bernie highly unlikely as our nominee.

            And I'm not a Hillary person. Don't like her. Never did. Not from day one when she arrogantly insisted she was going to be co-President, apparently by marriage, a heretofore unknown position in our system. Sorry she didn't like First Lady but that's all you get via marriage no matter what your zipper challenged husband promises you. I think calling her the most experienced candidate ever by counting Bill's years in the WH as hers, while nobody ever says the same thing about other first ladies, is ridiculous. She's been Senator and SOS. That doesn't make her the most experienced ever and since when is SOS notable as a jumping of position for President? 

            Still think she's going to be my Dem option and that she'd do a competent job. Certainly compared to the unformly nightmare alternatives.

            1. BC, in the early days of the Republic, SOS was THE stepping stone to President…Madison, et al.  That is why my hero Henry Clay wanted it so badly. But offhand I cant think of anyone who made the move after the civil war.

            2. BC, in the early days of the Republic, SOS was THE stepping stone to President…Madison, et al.  That is why my hero Henry Clay wanted it so badly. But offhand I cant think of anyone who made the move after the civil war.

      6. Please.  Republicans have already perfected the victimization rant.  Yours just come across as clumsy.  If you want to hate Clinton supporters then do it without all the Republican overtones of victimization.

  10. Re Update #2: That's good news that SCOTUS' derailment of the Clean Power  Plan (CPP) will be derailed by Scalia's death. That may be crass of me to write, but millions of refugees dying from drought, flooding, and starvation caused by climate change is kind of tasteless, too.

    Even though RMI says that market forces are more important than the CPP in moving us to a clean energy economy,  not having SCOTUS casting doubt on the constitutionality of the plan is one less obstacle. The Kochs must be miffed at Scalia for dying at such an inconvenient time.

    1. mama: you need to brush up on what the court actually did say re the CPP. I don't believe they took an actual position; rather, they deferred to the ongoing litigation.

      Thanks for the link to RMI. I’ll check that out later (sigh!!! the temptation of yet another subscription to e-mails!).

      1. CHB, I know what the court said to derail (stay) the CPP. That's why I said "derailed". A derailed train is going nowhere until it is put back on track. With Scalia's death, the 4-4 court can't uphold any state challenges, lower circuit courts will uphold the regulations,  the derailment can't happen, and the CPP train will chug on forward. 

  11. Thank you for your service, Justice Scalia. And for the brief revival of ""jiggery puffery."

    RIP.

    And I'm glad you aren't on the court anymore. I'm thinking it would be nice if Justice Thomas follows tradition and does whatever Scalia does.

    And I think what Senators Cruz and McConnell meant to say was Monica Goodling.

  12. The Republicans who want to delay any nomination for a year might want to consider that in February 2017 there will be a former constitutional law professor who will have just left his old job and would be really tight with either of the current Democratic candidates.

      1. Or vice versa …

        Obama could nominate Hillary. Now!  Give pro-choice GOPers, like Gardner, a real choice, approving her to the Supremes for life, or having her as their President? …

        … splodin' heads aplenty!

    2. yes

      I've been a big advocate of Hillary (or Bernie or Joe) appointing Obama to the first vacancy that occurs after 1/20/17. If he'll take the appointment.

  13. From an article that provides a good explanation of how a 4/4 Court will function for the next year including several examples of lower court decisions the right doesn't like that will remain in place, though without creating precedent, in case of even splits. And what will Republicans do if the next President is a Dem? 

    Already, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the Senate should not confirm Scalia’s replacement until after the presidential election in November. Whether he can really stall that long remains to be seen, but even assuming that Obama succeeds in choosing Scalia’s successor, that person will not take the bench for a while. That means that, for the next several months, readers of Supreme Court opinions are likely to find themselves encountering the phrase “affirmed by an equally divided court.” When the court has a full complement of nine justices and everyone votes, there are no ties. But when a justice is recused or otherwise not voting, the court needs a rule to decide what happens to a case in the event of a deadlock. The rule is that a tie vote affirms the decision below, but without setting a precedent for the future. That means that who won in the lower courts matters a great deal. This year, left-leaning decisions in the lower courts are almost sure to survive review in a Supreme Court without Scalia.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/scalia-death-supreme-court-will-lean-left-without-replacement-213629

    In other words, screw you, Republicans.

  14. The President will nominate.  Constitution says it's what the President does- he will.

    lots of good candidates to choose from.

     

    Harriet Miers. Albert Gonzales. Monica Goodling.  I think probably not.

     

    President Obama is not frivolous, but there are lots of nominations that would make for a fascinating Republican response.

    Richard Posner.

    Orrin Hatch.

    Raphael Cruz.

    George Bush.

    John Cornyn.

     

    1. Posner is the only one Obama might remotely consider, but he's in his 70s so it's not going to happen.

      There are plenty of qualified appellate judges Obama could nominate who have recently  been confirmed by unamanious votes of the Senate. Explaining why they were unobjectionable three years ago, and now not worthy of consideration would require some mental gymnastics, but then again the "fact" that no Supreme Court appointment has been made in an election year for 80 years has become today's talking point with no basis in reality.

      We  have always been at war with Eastasia.

       

      1. Eastasia!!! I have I heart EA shirts,. Oceania sucks!

         

        Posner because he is 90. And he's been on every righties shirt list for 40 years.

         

        of course, the President will play it straighter than suggesting.  No way he's gonn nominate Cornyn. Or Raphael.

  15. The voters should weigh in?

    We did. The voters elected the President. The voters elected the Senators.

    what the Republican whiners are saying is that the new voters should get new chance.  And they will the voters will elect a President and Senators and that President and those Senators will appoint and consent to the federal judges and other vacancies.  

     

    What happens next? It's 2018 and the Senate says… Nah, we are going to wait until the next President… 2020 is jest a few weeks away.  And then in 2021 the newly sworn Senate says- hey, the Constitution doesn't say we have to advise and consent on any schedule. We're going to wait until we want.  

  16. The death of Justice Scalia and subsequent events have brought the issue of the Supreme Court and the current political campaign into sharper contrast. As supporter of Bernie Sanders and a critic of Hillary Clinton, I am often admonished that my positions risk a loss to Republicans in the presidential election which would be catastrophic in terms of the future composition of the Supreme Court. And, I have to admit that this argument had some impact on me.

    Now? Not so much.

    It is clear, that a Republican controlled Senate will never confirm a nominee to the Court made by any Democratic president. I am convinced that Republicans would be satisfied with crippled Supreme Court with less that its full complement of justices. No nominee who supports Roe v. Wade – or even considers it “settled law” or a matter of stare decisis – would ever be confirmed by a Republican Senate. The same goes for issues related to women, same sex marriage, voting rights or Citizens United. So, if a Democrat is elected president, I fully expect to see the number of justices on the Supreme Court to continue to dwindle unless and until the Democrats and their allies are able to secure a solid 60 vote majority in the Senate. (This is, unless, Democrats are willing to get rid of the filibuster. Something I don't see as likely.)

    This brings me, then, to the matter of the election of a Republican president. All will not be lost – at least if we elect principled Democrats to the Senate. As long as Republicans continue to support the filibuster rule, Democrats will have the tool to avoid the confirmation of nominees to the Supreme Court like Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. Stop this crap about the President somehow deserves to have his nominee confirmed unless he/she is a child rapist or something like that. Republicans don't believe that and neither should Democrats. Democratic Senators should hold out for acceptable progressive nominees.

    This, of course, magnifies the importance of Senate elections. But, it also means that we should look at Democratic candidates for the Senate with greater scrutiny. Will a candidate – say Michael Bennet – stand up and vote against a nominee to the Court who has a right-wing background or who is an originalist?. Now, that is the question we need to put to every Democratic Senate candidate.

    1. The next Democratic leader will extend the current filibuster exception to all court nominees fairly quickly in the face of Republican intransigence to a new Supreme Court nominee.  Get 51 (or even 50) in the Senate, and that's all that'll be needed.  The harder part will be finding a nominee to stop Blue Dogs (not to be confused with BlueCats) from straying.

      2. yes Socialisticat.  Filibuster will be scrapped for court.  Get 50 and vice president ElizBeth Warren breaks the tie , putting first Obama and then Hillary on the court replacing Scalia and Thomas.  And 1,000 angels get their wings.

          1. Actually, james, hillary wins pres, names obama to court.  After she. Is reelected, thomas resins.  Hillary then resigns making warren president. Warren puts hillary on court. Sanders very happy in his new job as ambassador to Denmark.  Everybody wins.  Gredn bay and denver split next 10 superbowls. 

             

  18. Justice Scalia's death will make for interesting political theater for the next several months, but does it change the basic calculus of the Supreme Court? There are still 5 justices that are young enough to likely serve beyond the term of the next president, Thomas (67), Alito (65), Roberts (61), Sotomayor (61), and Kagan (55).  There are two democratic appointees that seemingly will not serve another 9 years, Ginsburg (82), and Breyer (77).  Kennedy is 79 as was Scalia. If Obama can appoint Scalia's successor, there will be a majority of democratic appointees. But that majority will be in jeopardy for 4 to 8 years if a republican is elected in November. The next president may get to appoint 3 – 5  justices (to replace Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, maybe Scalia, and maybe Thomas, if it's a republican) and decide the long-term ideological make-up of the Supreme Court.

    1. The death of Scalia doesn't change the electoral politics, even if Obama gets a nomination approved: it's still the Supreme Court, stupid! The next President will be in all likelihood appointing replacements to two liberal judges and the one "swingy" judge on the Court. Letting that fall to a Ted Cruz, a Donald Trump, or even a Chris Christie or John Kaisich would cement the conservative lock on this country's direction for decades. Any hope of a defense of voting rights or possibility of gerrymandering reform would be snuffed, and the resulting election rules and maps could solidify the GOP even against a rising tide of Democratic Party supporters for the rest of my lifetime.

      (For those not following so closely, Kennedy was open to gerrymander reform but didn't have a case to go after it; such a case is coming to maturity now…)

    1. Supporters of Bernie Sander are not BernieBots. I say this as someone who doesn't think Bernie has any chance of being our next President. Regardless, those who refer to them as such are just as stupid as the HRC supporters who denigrate women who support Sanders.

      Despite Voyageur's Johnny does it too argument to the contrary, I haven't seen a cute single word coined to denigrate HRC's supporters come into common use. If, as is most probably the case, HRC wins the nomination you'd better hope all those BernieBots you and your fellow travelers heap with disdain find the enthusiasm to strongly support her and come out in huge numbers to vote for her. She isn't exactly the best liked or most inspirational candidate ever to run for the office as it is.

      1. I apologize BC  Bernie is perfect on every way as are his supporters.  Hillary is the embodiment of evil, as are her supporters.  Sadly, Bernie can't win and Hillary can but we should trash Hillary until she gets the nomination at which point the perfect in every way Bern not-bots will hold their noses and join in the fight against Donald Trump — sure in the conviction that he won't be so caddish as to use any of our anti-Hillary rantings again her in the fall.  Do I finally have my mind right?

            1. You fail to make the distinction between criticizing the candidate and trashing that candidate's supporters.

              Candidates and their supporters are in it to win it and that includes criticizing their same party opponents during primary season, often quite harshly. And, yes, they do rather easily come together when one becomes the nominee. Sometimes the one who called the other's economic policy voodoo economics even becomes the other's VP. Sometimes the one who ran an ad pointing out how clueless the other would be as Commander in Chief in a crisis even becomes the other's SOS. Pols know this is just the way the game is played and that thick skins are a requirement. 

              But voters are not pols. They don't like being called morons so most pols and their minions are smart enough to confine attacks to the opponent, not to the opponent's supporters who they will need as enthusiastic voters when they win the nomination.

              Look carefully. You won't find any example of me, and damn few of anybody else, denigrating HRC supporters on this site.

              But rage on Voyageur. You do it so well.wink

              1. Well, you certainly trashed Madeline Albright, Gloria Steinem and others rash enough to support Hillary.  You have never said a good word for Hillary other than her possible electability or a bad word about Bernie other than his non-electability.  As an honest broker you fall a mite short.  But if you really haven't seen posters like Zappy or Duke or others trashing Hillary supporters, I suggest you get your eyes checked.   No, you aren't neutral but you are a smart and intelligent woman and if we can nominate Hillary, I know we can count on your vote.   But please stop the tiresome yearning for a better candidate — filing deadlines are past, O'Malley dropped out and mano a mano between Bernie and Hillary.  (that term means hand to hand in espanol, not man to man as some people think so it can apply to a male-female contest.  A year ago, maybe Biden could have changed the race but tragedy overtook him too.  The race is what it is and I think the courage, integrity and empathy of Hillary Clinton outshine anyone in either field.  And, yes, as the husband, father and grandfather of smart and aspiring women, I think it is time to smash the glass ceiling in politics the same way we dropped the color bar in 2008.   Others may disagree for honorable reasons.  But revolutions are not based on consensus but on the recognition of when the tides of history are flowing the right way.  And yes, I think this is the time for women to seize the opportunities once called for so plaintively by Abigail Adams — and enter the white house as its master, not its housewife.

                1. I criticized them only for unwisely trashing women who don't agree with their choice as being ignorant or traitors. 

                  As for my comments on HRC I refer you to the distinction cited in the comment to which you are replying.

                  Yes the race is what it is. I accept it. I just don't appreciate the stupid steam rolling that made it what it is.

                  You are welcome to post examples of Duke (Zap is a  special case as we all know) trashing those who support HRC. You are welcome to post examples of an anti-HRC equivalent to the anti-Bernie supporters’ "BernieBots". You are welcome to post links to op-eds by prominent Bernie supporting pols or issue advocates attacking HRC's supporters as stupid and/or traitors. I look forward to seeing them.

                  First you refer to the SOS to President route not taken since the mid nineteenth century. Now It’s Abigail Adams. Try joining this century?

                  1. You are welcome to post examples of Duke (Zap is a  special case as we all know) trashing those who support HRC.  

                    I wouldn't mind seeing those myself…since I don't recall "trashing" her supporters. I am getting old and forgetful so I would appreciate seeing those examples of me "trashing" Hillary or her supporters..

                    Thanks in advance, V,  for pointing out my transgression.

                2. You didn' t refer to my comments. I don't know if you read them, but I've admitted, will still admit, that Clin ton is far more credible on foreign policy than is Sanders. If people are more scared of terrorism than hopeful about American economic vitality, then Hillary will win the nomination, said I.

                  I'm caucusing for Sanders. This does not mean that I'm deluded nor am I a "bot", a sexist woman hater sent to hell by Albright, a unicorn rancher, or any of the other insults Clinton supporters like to fling at us. Bluecat is right that you are not helping your cause when you indulge in this nonsense. 

                   

      2. My reference was to many BernieBots' insistence that they'd "never, ever, EVER vote for HER!" and the rest of the childish foot stomping that comes from the Bernie camp day after day after day.

        It's funny: I actually like Bernie quite a bit. His supporters are among the reasons I've turned away from him (along with his stance on guns, which I find repugnant and not at all progressive). But we see what we want, don't we, BC? 

        1. Please see my reply to Voyageur above and feel free to post what I've invited him to post. I look forward to hearing the anti-HRC version of “BernieBots” since I have yet to hear one and all the attacks on HRC supporters as stupid and/or traitors written by prominent public figures like Gloria Steinem.

          1. HillBots I've heard, oh, about 50 times in the last week. Does that count? 

            I'd like you now to post where I claimed Bernie supporters are stupid and/or traitors. Thanks in advance. 

            Like you, I don't take credit for the words of another person, famous or not.

            1. Voyageur said I neeeded my eyes checked for not seeing all these things here on ColPols. I haven't heard HillBot but I've seen BernieBots right here numerous times. Can you show me HillBot in print here or link me to it elsewhere? Thanks in advance.

              When you use the term BernieBots surely it's meant to to be derogatory. I can show you your use of that derogatory term.

              Sincerely hope this wakes the BernieBots from their slumber. – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/80615/breaking-supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies#comment-598717

              You're welcome.

              As for complaints about Bernie's supporters being called specifically stupid or traitors, also derogatory terms, it is the prominent supporters of HRC, not just people like us who nobody pays attention to but national figures like Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright, I correctly say have insulted women who support Bernie as, yes, ignorant, traitors to feminism, or just silly girls who like boys. It is the equivalent on the anti-HRC side on video or in op-eds I've requested links to. Remember, not directed against the candidate but against her supporters. Once again, thank you in advance.smiley

              1. So now I should answer for the words of Steinem and Albright? Two women I've never met in my life and likely never will? Um… ok. 

                Is the term "BernieBot" derisive? Yeah, it is, it's less derisive than "BernieBro," in my opinion, but I guess that doesn't really matter here.

                The reason I like BernieBot is because many of his supporters, or the ones I've met — I won't make you answer for them, because that would be absurd — simply repeat the same talking points over and over again, as if they're possessed by Marco Roboto. As an undecided voter (former O'Malley supporter), they have done their candidate no favors by countering my questions about his gun votes with "yeah, well, revolution!' Hell, when I asked the very nice canvasser at my door if he'd voted in '10 or '14, he told me, honestly, that he had not. Then started telling me that if I even consider voting for Clinton, I'm turning my back on the poor and less fortunate. And "don't you care about corporations owning the country?" Wish I was kidding.

                So yes, I guess you could say I don't have a great amount of love for Bernie's supporters, hence the terminology. 

                I'm truly sorry my difference in opinion has so shocked and dismayed you. I wish you the best of luck with that. 

                1. Sigh. Not asking you to answer for their words. Just asking you to prove your whole both sides do it equally point. One aspect of that would be comments made b each sides supporters here. Another would be comments made by each sides most prominent supporters. Never mind, dear. I'm not going to diagram it for you one more time.

                  1. Ah, the natural habitat of the BernieBot: Whining about condescension, as they condescend themselves. 

                    I see you're one of those keyboard warriors that just likes to argue, and will move the goalposts to achieve just that outcome. I'll leave you to it. 

                    Feel free to have the last word. I know that when your voice isn't the last one heard, it just kills you guys inside.

                2. or the ones I've met  

                  Then it is pretty apparent you don't get around much. I invite you to come and sit down with the group of Sanders supporters I know. You will find them to be anything but whiners. Oh…by the bye..this, I doubt..

                  The reason I like BernieBot is because many of his supporters,…..simply repeat the same talking points over and over again, as if they're possessed by Marco Roboto.  

                  I think the reason you like the term is because you are trying to trivialize the Sanders campaign by making his supporters seem cartoonish. Good luck with that strategy. Please continue to underestimate Bernie Sanders and the millions of people who understand that NOW is the time to re-write the dominant narrative of American society' 

                  DonaldTrump is the personification of what ails America…We celebrate and reward wealth and celebrity and ignore the poverty and injustice as long as the billionaires keep Americans distracted by the "Circus" and give us lotteries so we can hope to someday become one of them 

                  Bernie Sanders, along with millions of Americans are learning what Bernie knows and what I have been saying for years…You cannot change a corrupt system by taking its money…

                  Or, if you are one of the Christian conservatives who visit here… 

                  No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.      Matthew 6:24

                   

                   

                  1. I'm about as far from a Christian conservative as you can get. Swing and a miss.

                    And I know plenty of Bernie backers, people I'm friends with, who I respect. When they start talking about Bernie, something short-circuits in their brain and they turn into Talking Point Regurgitation 2000s. 

                    Oh, and there's this: should Bernie win the nomination, I'll vote for him, in spite of his abysmal record on guns and gun violence. To do otherwise, in my opinion, would call into question whether I was ever a progressive to begin with, because once again, the next President will appoint 2-3 justices to the US Supreme Court. 

                    The court is the ballgame. If your guy doesn't win, and you turn your back on a nominee who will actually appoint good judges to the Court, well… draw your own conclusion.

                     

                    1. Bear down a little harder on the reading comprehension, Tobias…you missed this word…"if"

                      I didn't swing, so I could not have missed….

                      I will be happy for you to show me any instance in which I even CAME CLOSE to SUGGESTING that I MIGHT even CONSIDER voting for a Republican for President. If Hillary wins the nomination, I will vote for her. I think Bernie has a better chance of winning the general…because…

                      paraphrasing something I have read here before…

                      Given the choice, most people will vote for a Republican before they will vote for a Democrat trying to act like a Republican…

                      I think they would rather vote for an Independent acting like a Democrat.

                       

                1. We can discount the 2008 (!?!) source right off the top. There wasn't any Bernie/HRC race going then so it's not relevant to our discussion about the, you know, here and now. Congrats on the actual contemporary and relevant HillBots sighting on somebody's blog, not this one. But close enough! Not that I'm keeping score but I'm pretty sure I'm still way ahead on points.smiley 

    2. What are you talking about? If the meeting I attended yesterday is any indication, we "BernieBots" are decidedly not sleeping. 

      I am, though, getting a little weary of the condescension and lectures from the Clintonistas…If being disrespectful of the competition is how you want to play this game, I'm up for it. 

      In the meantime, know this…You may call us names, impugn our intelligence, imply that Sanders supporters are all frustrated unicorn ranchers…whatever you think is funny and derogatory enough to bolster your support for your Blue Dog candidate,….we don’t care…..we are just going to beat you….HAND  

  20. "I am, though, getting a little weary of the condescension and lectures from the Clintonistas……."  How about if you get a polite "lecture" from a conservative who is generally unhappy with the party dregs now running for President on the other side, except maybe Gov. Kasich (did you hear the new one about Ted Cruz and his bill to strip Americans of their citizenship on the grounds of "fighting" ISIS?).

    I'm old enough to have a solid memory of 1972 where the youthful fervor surrounding George McGovern was much the same as that now surrounding Bernie Sanders. The Vietnam war was still underway. Large crowds came out to hear McGovern talk, like Sanders now.

    Problem is, common sense intervened in '72 and McGovern was wiped out in a landslide. I would foresee the same happening in 2016 if Sanders gets the nomination, as the "common sense" created by the Super PACs comes into play and people start wondering how Sanders is going to pay for all the free goodies he's talking about. The issue of appointments to the Supreme Court is also a reality that the Sanders followers don't seem well able to grasp. Trump or Cruz get elected? Kiss a lot of cases and things we take for granted; like access to abortion and some forms of contraception; goodbye. 

    "we don't care…..we are just going to beat you….."  Be careful what you wish for. You may get it, and a lot of bad side effects to go along. Side effects? How about the legacy of the candidacy in 2000 of Ralph Nader’s Ego that gave the country G.W. Bush as president?   C.H.B.

      1. Who did you support in the 2000 general election, CHB?  I backed McCain also, but voted Bush in the general.  What wasn't to like about moderate bipartisan Bush 2000?  Sigh, fool me once  ( I was a Republican until 2010.)

        1. As a Vietnam era vet, I have intense admiration for John McCain.  And frankly, your party put up only Al Gore, who ran an incredibly bad campaign.  McCain 2000 was a far better figure than McCain 2008.   The years — and quite possibly the long term effects of torture — had eroded a once sterling integrity.

          1. I also supported McCain in 2000 before the Bush/Rove dirty tricks in South Carolina disposed of his candidacy. Honestly, he was a completely different person in '08. You can't even really compare the two.

          2. Yes, Gore ran a bad campaign.  As for McCain, while enduring the horrors of being a POW for years makes him an admirable man and American it has nothing to do with being smart on foreign or domestic policy. It doesn't even prove any particular understanding of that war, that era and its complexities since he spent most of it isolated from any knowlege of WTF was going on outside his prison camp.

            As a legislator in his life since it's my opinion he hasn't demonstrated any particular presidential potential. He deserves our respect for his courage and sacrifice. That doesn't mean he deserved to be our President.  

            As for your support of GW….. whatever.

    2. Thanks for your thoughts, C.H.B. I am being very careful for that which I wish.

      The first vote I ever cast was for George McGovern. I wonder sometimes how the world would be different if he had won.

      What you refer to as "common sense" could just as easily be called "selling out". Einsteins' theory of relativity comes into play here…it's all relative to your point of view.

      I attended a get together of "Berniebots" yesterday…Hillary is right to be worried. What I said to that group yesterday is the reality what will make the difference… "The sad lament that "Bernie can't accomplish all the things he is promising" is met with such derision by Bernies' supporters because we ALL agree…Bernie isn't going to do it…WE are."  He is going to lead us…not do it for us.

      This is more than a candidate…it is bigger than Bernie…it is a movement.

      This is, so far, the most "bottom up" campaign I have yet seen (and I have seen a bunch of them). Continue to disparage "Berniebots" as you will…

      We will see you at the ballot box….

       

      1. Hopefully the 'Bots remember to vote in midterm elections, too.

        Remember: Obama was a transformational candidate too, and then liberals decided he hadn't done enough in his first two years and stayed away in '10 and '14. 

        Now BernieBots want to lecture me about the revolution they're having when they didn't bother to wander into a voting booth in the last 20 years. Cool, man. Far out. 

    3. The issue of appointments to the Supreme Court is also a reality that the Sanders followers don't seem well able to grasp.   

      This is a little insulting, by the way. It is the same misconception I have seen repeated ad nauseum from the Clinton camp. You ALL need to stop thinking that Bernie Sanders supporters are in someway mentally incapable of understanding why ONLY Hillary Clinton can be our next president. If you think that is true…then you are the misguided one.

      1. I like Bernie, he sings the songs my soul wants to hear.  I voted for McGovern, too.  But I will vote happily for whichever Democratic candidate gets the nomination.  Because even CHB can't find a lot of good in the candidates on the other side.  And I find most of them appalling.

      2. In my experience, the Supreme Court argument only comes out when a Bernie supporter talks about how they will never ever vote for HRC. And I think it's a valid argument to make. 

        If you want to caucus for Bernie, do it! Nobody is telling you not to! If he wins, I'll support him! 

        But if he doesn't… the Supreme Court argument is very, very legitimate.

      3. Duke: I can live with John Kasich if he in fact gets the nomination; and I will vote for him. Sorry you think my reference to Sanders & Supreme Court nominations is insulting. But the burden is on Bernie to show that he really grasps the seriousness of the situation. So far, all he talks about is inequality and his tax & spend programs to solve inequality, in his eyes.

        Consider something else: Trump, or Cruz, as the Republican nominee and Sanders as the Democratic nominee. Does that open the door for Michael Bloomberg as a viable 3rd party candidate? I would think so. Trump is a nut case; Cruz is pretty close to crazy; and Bernie is a far left socialist. Not much to like with any of the three if a voter is a center-right type of person. 

    1. McConnell throws down the gauntlet: No Scalia replacement under Obama

      Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate should not confirm a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia until after the 2016 election — an historic rebuke of President Obama’s authority and an extraordinary challenge to the practice of considering each nominee on his or her individual merits.

      The swiftness of McConnell’s statement — coming about an hour after Scalia’s death in Texas had been confirmed — stunned White House officials who had expected the Kentucky Republican to block their nominee with every tool at his disposal, but didn't imagine the combative GOP leader would issue an instant, categorical rejection of anyone Obama chose to nominate.

      I know what you mean.

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

184 readers online now

Newsletter

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