U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 15, 2018 10:34 AM UTC
34 Comments
I'm surprised he didn't fold like a cheap suit sooner. Cue nutlid: pot bad. Discrimination in the name of imposing your hate on others and calling it religious freedom and conscience is great.
Due process. Lock her up!
Marijuana is illegal under federal law. We should not be jeopardizing national security. Gardner was running out of my patience and I'm glad he saw reason before something bad happened.
Too late. Something bad already happened yesterday in Florida. Not due to marijuana.
How does legal weed jeopardize national security? Can you provide an intelligent answer to that?
Or lack of a wall.
The shooter was an American citizen, light-complected (although with a hispanic last name), a member of a white supremacist group, and a Trump supporter.
Of course.
Negev? PP? Moddy?
Anyone want to tell us how Trump's immigration policies (or any policies) are going to keep us safe from white citizen right wing terrorists?
Anyone?
Negev and Moddy are deep in their thought and prayers for the victims and will remain there until the subject changes. PP is busy with his campaign against that liberal Mike Coffman.
well
"Exclusive—Regnery: Republican Cory Gardner Holds National Security Hostage for Marijuana Industry"
It's a breitbart thing
"The pot" causes us to forget the rules and laws, and then we chainsaw gramma and skip church and it all goes poof
Read the 9th and 10th amendments, imbecile.
(The imbecile in question is moddy.)
Why should he? He will tell you the 2nd Amendment is the only one that matters.
FFS, the 9th and 10th amendments have nothing to do with this. It is absolutely settled law that the feds can prosecute marijuana crimes under federal law, regardless of marijuana's status under state law.
In Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court upheld (under the Commerce Clause) the power of federal authorities to prosecute home growing of medical marijuana in a state (California) that had decriminalized marijuana. The dissenters would have held that homegrown weed was outside of the scope of the Commerce Clause; there would have been no doubt among the dissenters that the feds could prosecute commercial growing and selling.
Forbearance by the DOJ, as the Cole memorandum set forth, was at best a temporary solution. Congress has to act or the legal pot industry in Colorado and other states will be subject to the whims of the DOJ and the local U.S. attorney.
The 9th and 10th amendments ensure that states have the right to go beyond the federal constitution and create new and additional rights for their citizens. I know you disagree, Old Time, but the point is what the purpose of the constitution was and the meaning of these amendments. Right wingers usually pretend to care about them and to guard states rights. The war on drugs has abused many parts of the constitution but none more than the ninth and tenth amendments.
So if Alabama were to legalize discrimination, you think that the federal government couldn't prosecute violations of the federal civil rights laws in Alabama? Or a federal assault weapons ban couldn't be enforced in a state that didn't also have an assault weapons ban?
You don't have a clue as to what the 9th and 10th amendments mean.
To put it bluntly, old time, you need a course in con law. States can give extra rights, but must at least match the federal. Both the Colorado version of the first amendment and the second amendment are more expansive than their federal counterparts.
Sorry, clueless one, but if you were right, the feds woild not have needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. But they did because they had no enumerated power to ban alcohol and state rights, embodied in those two amendments you can' t bring yourself to read, were controlling.
Next time, do ten minutes of research before making yourself look like a fool.
I've pointed you in the direction of Gonzales v. Raich twice. But apparently you know your con law better than a majority of the Supreme Court. Although you have Justice Thomas on your side.
Bluster and insults are all you've got. I'll go with the Supreme Court on this one.
You still haven't answered about how your beloved fugitive slave law is working out, or why the alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amend but marijuana prohibition can be done by bureaucratic whim. Also, lopez has to shock your faith in the unlimited power of the federal government.
The Supreme Upheld the georgia sodomy law, then reversed. Public opinion, once anti-gay, shifted and the high court decided there is a right to privacy after all– and then legalized gay marriage.
Read the Cato friend of the court brief in Raich and you will see that the unchecked federal government's days are limited.
Oh, well, you'll always have the Palmer Red Raids and the Dred Scott ruling to warm you on a cold winter night. And your video of Reefer Madness.
Add bullshit and non sequitur to blather and insults.
I've described the current state of the law: the Supreme Court has upheld federal prosecutions in states that have legalized pot. That is a fact. If you can't tell the difference in legal authority between a Supreme Court opinion and an amicus brief, you're an imbecile.
In addition , you appear to be unable to distinguish between an accurate description of the current state of the law, and whether or not I support the implications or policy of that current state of the law.
Others have alluded to the fact that you're not actually an imbecile. If that is so, then you're just a troll.
On the other hand, I haven't seen much evidence that you are not, in fact, an imbecile and, of course, you can be be both.
Whatever applies to you –moron, troll, or both: fuck off. Life is too short to be engaging with the wretched pieces of shit like you who infest the internet.
BTW, it was the Civil War–not the war on drugs–that pretty much settled the question of whether states can nullify federal law.
Actually, that would have been the nullification crisis.
. And how is that fugitive slave law working out for you?
Shorter Moldy: "Pot evil. Killing children in schools FREEDOM."
Gardner was running out of my patience and I'm glad he saw reason before something bad happened.
Change the course, Senator. Before something bad happens.
Like a Nutlid endorsement?
Gardner got into this with no exit strategy and got burned. He's not as good a politician as people think he is.
He’s negotiating like he’s a Democrat . . .
He comes by that honestly.
People think he's good?
Who beside Dan Caplis?
Chuck Plunkett.
I am down to my last free article in the DP. I've been offered an on-line subscription for only $11.99 per month.
I'll pass.
That empty feeling will heal.
Hard to hold the line without a spine.
Especially cause Love isn't always on time.
Argh wrong post.