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%
April 18, 2013 08:47 AM UTC
8 Comments
NEWS FLASH: it's what they believe.
Yeah, it ought to be fucking publicized. I hope somebody mentions that to Chuck Plunkett over lunch at the Brown Palace sometime.
(mutters cuss words)
What would a trial lawyer’s trade association or lobbyist do? What actions would they take on behalf of the organization that hired them?
I guess it depends on whether you think "trial lawyers" are the devil, Nockless.
WRONG. This bill doesn't give any new rights. Small business discrimination victims can still sue. This bill hikes punitive damages. Why?
Because bloodsucking trial lawyers won't help them without a big payoff.
This is a trial lawyer employment bill, plain and simple. Ambulance chasing lawyers care only about themselves.
Like this blood sucking ambulance chaser?
http://rickwagnerslaw.blogspot.com/
Speaking of ambulance chasers, whatever happened to Frank Azar the "Strong Arm." He had the most ridiculous and over-the top TV ads,
ArapaGOP is wrong about employees of small businesses currently being able to sue, but there is some sense at some point to having a small business exclusion.
The notion is that in a very small business, the interactions between employer and employee are at such a personal level and so much of the hiring is simply a matter of hiring friends, family and neighbors which frequently has an obviously discriminatory effect. Thus, the assumptions of anti-discrimination law that employers have a basically meritocratic and bureaucratic hiring process don't map well to the real world hiring context for these employers, while leaving small business employers exposed to suits claiming that permissible non-racial reasons like friend and family ties with a discriminatory effect are really pretexts for a racial or other prohibited reason. This is similar to the exemption for homeowners renting rooms in their own residence for discriminatory reasons and the lack of law prohibiting people from discriminating in dating and marriage.
The counterargument is that in fact virtually nobody except governmental agency plaintiffs ever wins or brings a discrimination in hiring suit, because convincing a jury that you have damages because you out of all of the applicants are the one who would have been hired but for racial discrimination (and then showing your damages) is virtually impossible in a private employer cases involving an individual job applicant, class actions are virtually impossible to bring against a small employer because identifying other applicants (on the theory that someone in the class would have been hired) is a practical impossibility for a private trial lawyer. Thus, this won't give rise to many lawsuits. The real practical effect of the law is to make it impossible for small business employers to publicly solicit employees on a purely prohibited basis since they are allowed in principle to be openly discriminatory in hiring. Prohibiting discriminatory solicitation and making it theoretically illegal for even small business employers to discriminate in hiring (even if the prohibition is unenforceable in fact) sends a moral message to small business employers and is likely to prevent openly discriminatory attitudes toward hiring from becoming normative in the small business hiring market. Thus, the law is likely to change behavior a lot with very little private litigation.
Still, politically, this issue is a tarbaby that would look very ugly for the Republican to bring up in a campaign ad against a Democrat even in many very safe GOP districts. Knowing that they're going to lose anyway, they were fools to choose this battle rather than more "photogenic" ones.
ArapaGOrP is wrong about everything. He's a liar. I really wonder why he believes he's "saved," as he's stated on Pols before.