Statewide Candidates Ditch Secession While Cory Gardner Dodges

9 thoughts on “Statewide Candidates Ditch Secession While Cory Gardner Dodges”

1. “I’m running for governor to be the marriage counselor, to help bring this state back together."

   I'm sorry to disagree with you Senator Brophy, but this state is not splitting apart. This is not about bringing people back together. We have honest disagreements, as we should in a democracy. Your opinion just happens to be in the minority right now. Why is it when Republicans railroad their agenda through, it's because they have a mandate, but when Democrats do it, we're being divisive and tearing things apart? 

    

   I can guarantee that if you were elected, you would in no way, shape or form represent my interests. And if I were to bring it to your attention, you would write me off just as easily as you accuse the Democrats of doing to rural Colorado. 

    

   Republicans, you are the ones so ready to tear things apart just so you can remold it in your own image. 

   Log in to Reply

2. It's a secret ballot, he doesn't have to tell you anything. Sorry but it's true.

   Log in to Reply

   1. Of course he doesn't have to. Nobody has to share their views or votes with anyone, though most who don't want to share that kind of info don't run for public office. But, being a Rep., people have the right to ask what his positions on important issue are, including those that may appear on a ballot. What his answers are and whether or not he chooses to answer are certainly among those things people should take into consideration when deciding whether or not to give their support. 

      Can you imagine Gardner refusing to say whether he voted for Romney or Obama because it's a secret ballot?  Can you imagine what Rs would say if a Dem candidate refused to say how he or she voted on 66 because it's a secret ballot?  

       

      Pretty lame comment, Modster.

      Log in to Reply

      1. Tea Party bravery at its finest.

         Log in to Reply

3. Thanks for linking to the Heritage report. Here's what it says:

   This case is activist because the Court sub silentio relies upon theLiving Constitution doctrine, creating a “principle” found nowhere in the Constitution’s text or tradition. The Court abuses precedent, building upon its error in Baker v. Carr, in which the Court arrogates unto itself the authority to rule upon questions properly reserved to the politically responsible branches, establishing the broad rule that Equal Protection prohibits apportioning representatives by geographic or political subdivisions—a rule that finds no quarter in the Constitution’s text or history..

   In putatively interpreting the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause, the majority fails to even address the full text of the Fourteenth Amendment, the second section of which provides a remedy if states choose, as Section 2 acknowledges to be within their authority, to deny “or in any way” abridge the right to vote in cases not dealing with rebellion or crime. Furthermore, if the meaning of Equal Protection were as broad as the Reynolds court claims, then the 15th Amendment, which prohibits denying or abridging votes on account of race, would be wholly superfluous, as the Equal Protection Clause would fully accomplish this end.

   Historically, there is no evidence at the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment’s that the term Equal Protection applied to political questions, like how a government chose to allocate representatives. Indeed, the widespread use of representation based on geographic or political subdivisions in the states, and the “Great Compromise,” which granted each state two Senators and at least one Representative regardless of population—stand in awkward opposition to the Court’s novel reading.

   Log in to Reply

   1. Heritage is a partisan hack outfit and who cares?  The courts, not partisan organizations, decide.

      Log in to Reply

   2. reads like something any 1L could write 

      Log in to Reply

4. Of course N3bbish is pleased to quote the Heritage Foundation in this instance but would be the first to deny that the Heritage provided the template for the PPACA.

   He's also never once replied to my suggestions that it would be mete for him to meet my ex-ranger friend who could instruct him on really well concealed weapons carry. The Heritage even more than  Heartland or Catois a political hack organization whose principal function is to serve as a base for wingnut propaganda ops.

   Log in to Reply

   1. Like n3bbish. He certainly is.

      Log in to Reply