President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 24, 2016 11:34 AM UTC
23 Comments
Take heart, Rockies fans; Donald Trump was once thought to be a longshot contender for President. It’s time to
Guantanamo NIMBY is setting in. It's politically incorrect to say it, but our citizens have to start owning up to the actions of the government THEY ELECTED to run the place.
We owe trillions for two wars. George Washington, in his Farewell Address to Congress, admonished us to pay down our expenses and not leave them to posterity.
We imprisoned hundreds at Guantanamo, treated some of them inhumanely, and we are responsible for cleaning up the financial and worldwide stain on our reputation that it represents.
We've polluted the atmosphere in the pursuit of progress, and it's going to ruin our coastal cities and much of our own ecology unless we take responsibility.
None of these things is Bad in the long term. Paying down the debt means lower government outlays in the future (not to mention removing the debt ceiling as a hostage in a partisan battle). Closing Guantanamo allows us to begin repairing our standing as a moral beacon to the world, giving us more power and respect and hopefully enhancing peace in the future. Fixing our broken climate chemistry means lower expenses and fewer crises in the coming years. I guess it's too much to ask…
Brilliant stroke!
Reuters is reporting that Obama is considering nominating Brian Sandoval to the Supreme Court vacancy! The same Brian Sandoval who is the second-term Republican governor of Nevada who is pro-choice and relatively tolerant on LGBT issues.
I'm wondering whether Sandoval would accept it. He's in his second term, declined a run for Harry Reid's seat, and hasn't endorsed any of the three stooges (Trump, Cruz or Rubio) so his political future looks limited.
If Obama does it, it's a move worthy of Bill Clinton's triangulation or Richard Nixon's southern strategy. Remember Nixon nominated Clement Haynesworth and Harold Carswell, segregationist Dems to the Supreme Court, just to watch the Dem Senate reject them.
And then he used that to fire up the southern racists – who probably weren’t going to vote for McGovern anyway – to turn them out for the Republican ticket in ’72.
Brilliant stroke!
And what happens if they accept? A disaster for labor and possibly a reverse-Souter? If I were McConnell, I'd see this as an opportunity to foreclose a more liberal appointment, with the next Senate balance unsure, that might be worth taking. And then we get Kennedy Jr.
Isn't what's important gaining the political advantage that Republican recalcitrance provides, rather than make the Rs pass a nominee through? I'd vastly rather see an empty seat; a qualified, more liberal, candidate causing pain for Rs; and not a conservative appointee, please.
I can live with a moderate Republican replacing a neanderthal Republican. (Hell, I used to be a moderate Republican once upon a time.)
Keep in mind something else. There is no guarantee that Hillary or Bernie wins in November. And Dem are looking at picking up between 2 and 4 Senate seats (Kirk and Feingold are pretty certain, maybe Ohio and NH).
Do you want President Trump picking another neanderthal?
Besides, they won't approve Sandoval. Collins, Kirk, Ayotte, Portman and Heller would probably support him but Grassley will never report the nomination to the floor. Take a look at the judiciary committee roster.
I expect they could wait to hold the vote until close to/after the election and before the next Senate is seated. So they can have a better idea what's happening before they decide to vote.
In the end, since anything is a dice roll at this point, I'd rather bet on a D president than a "moderate" (because the destruction of unions, an end to affirmative action in a still very racist society, and the removal of protections like the exclusionary rule for evidence are things I don't consider moderate, yet Kennedy is on board with) conservative justice.
I am no fan of the exclusiionary rule. We didn't adopt it until 1914 and no other advanced legal system uses it. There are better ways to sanction police misconduct than throwing out the facts. Truth should be sacred. To be fair, the O'Connor reforms, like inevitable discovery , somewhat defanged this monster. But it still protects the guilty and only the guilty.
Many people think as you do, and it's certainly a supportable opinion. Many others agree with me that it protects people who are not guilty as well, as it deters officers, who are not meaningfully punished generally, from engaging in race and economic-based policing.
A good discussion of a current case can be found here.
In general, we have to ask ourselves if we're happier in a society where, if police stop, detain, and search people illegally, we rely on institutions to self-police or we seek to ensure that such actions bear no benefit through the exclusion of evidence found subsequently.
Personally, I prefer the latter, but I also think a lot on the words of Cardinal Richelieu: "Show me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough therein to hang him "
The piece you posted is indeed food for thought. I would note, however, that little in the Ferguson saga reflects police misconduct. As the Justice Department noted, the corruption starts with a city council, mayor and city manager who hold down taxes by systemically ripping off poor, mostly black, citizens. Yes, police carry out these policies but it is the city fathers who lead the oppression. I wish I knew more about how Britain, Canada and other democracies deter and punish police and prodecutorial misconduct without the exclusionary rule. A week suspended without pay might be a far more effective deterrent than letting a perp go free while a cop or prosecutor shrugs. One thing we do well in Colorado is a strong public defender office. Some states, including death belt states, still use what I call the "town drunk" system, appointing incompetent counsel even in capital cases. Anyway, thanks for a thougtful response. Are you an attorney?
Britain (and I'm assuming Canada since they have a much more recent history together) doesn't really practice adversarial justice either. I think this is one of those cases where we're supposed to listen to the conservatives and say "we shouldn't be looking to other countries for judicial advice".
Other countries do have exclusion, but it's more discretionary than in the US. Largely, I think, because of a combination of our history of police torture (rubber hoses, phonebooks, a trip to the docks for some improvisational drowning, etc.), the highly fragmented nature of our policing structure, and a tendency to seek firm rules in legal proceedings over offering guidelines for discretion.
Canada, for example, allows exclusion of evidence obtained illegally:
Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
There's a test:
(1) the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct (admission may send the message the justice system condones serious state misconduct),
(2) the impact of the breach on the Charter-protected interests of the accused (admission may send the message that individual rights count for little), and
(3) society's interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits.
But, folks still get convicted using evidence found subsequent to an unlawful search. In the article I link below, a dude was pulled over for a vehicle infraction that wasn't one, and the officer subsequently found 77 pounds of cocaine. That evidence was allowed.
It's old, but this article from the NYT has a good overview of how other countries do this thing.
I attended law school, but it didn’t stick. I realized I loved the law in every way that being a lawyer isn’t about.
The problem is that our system is too much a game and too little about truth. Still, 95 percent or more of criminal cases end with plea bargains, limiting the impact of the exclusionary rule. But that doesn't mean they have no impact, since the strength of a case is reflected in the terms of the plea bargain. I don't know if you ever took the bar, but I do think there is an extremely honorable side of the law — the much derided family law. My attorney daughter has helped some desperate women. Unfortunately, primarily pro bono, despite towering law school loans (200K) Now. she faces the possibility of permanent disability. Life deals some rabbit punches,
I'm sorry to hear about your daughter's circumstance. That sounds awful. Depending on the type of loans she's carrying. she may be eligible for a Total and Permanent Disability Discharge of federal loans. There are also options for income-based repayment, and forbearance while things get sorted out. Again, these are for federal loan programs. Fortunately, my revelation about law school came early on in my time there, so I have little debt to repay from that exploration. My other degrees, though, while the payments won't cover a mortgage. they sure could support a nice cabin in the mountains.
I actually think all aspects of law offer honorable areas in which to practice, although not all lawyers choose to be. I do admit a particular fondness for those who fight for the dignity of others, though.
The federal loans are no problem but she owes 92k to Sallie Mae, which I am cosigned on. Chest La'Vie.
Accepting after swearing never to fgve up opposing on principle won't look good. Their base would be furious since Sandoval is not anti-choice, considers same sex marrriage to be a settled issue and approved implementing ACA. I think they'd take the criticism for being obstructionist over sending their people into elections having to explain approving this guy. Of course they could give him a hearing without approving in the end but having to explain why.
Dems would probably still not look kindly on him for his anti-union positions and I bet he’s not a foe of Citizens United.
If Rs were smart they’d give him a hearing and be able to kill the nomination and could say… lots of Dems voted against him too. It was all fair and square.
fat fingers.
Of course they could give him a hearing without approving in the end but having to explain why
And if the appointment were announced tomorrow, they could schedule the hearing to start of April 30 to allow time for background checks, courtesy calls, etc., recess on April 30th and announce they will resume at the end of June (what with Mother's Day, Memorial Day, and Flag Day recesses mixed in with the obligatory votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act), then announce that they will delay a committee vote until after the summer recess, and then announce it's too close to the election to consider.
They could have the best of both worlds: claim to be fulfilling their constitutional duty to advise and consent (at least nominally) and turn to their damn base and declare that they kept the faith and didn't hold a vote.
I don't think they're smart enough to handle it that way……
I doubt this ever gets to sending Sandoval's name in for the nomination. It's already hit the streets, and the media is already collecting "hell, no!" responses from Senate Republicans. Obama has a list of names; Sandoval is on the list. Vetting will take another week or two, and Sandoval's name is certain to be all over the place until the actual nomination is announced. Let the media run roughshod over the GOP Senate until then…
He will be one of several being considered. The instant response rejecting the idea has already confirmed the Senate Republicans are out of the box in their opposition. I'm a bit confused why he would indicate a willingness to be considered, given it undercuts any future role in Republican national politics [cf Chris Christie's hug of Obama] and that he's gotta know that whoever is nominated is simply going to sit.
Pres. Obama really seems to be playing this straight, giving the Senators rope to hang themselves with.
And they're lining up to put their heads in the noose.
I think it's important to remember that it isn't only the GOP or even voter dissatisfaction with the status quo that's responsible for the rise of Trump. Trump has, from the beginning, had more free exposure than any candidate, including Trump himself, could possibly afford to buy.
While Rubio and Cruz have to decide where to spend their ad dollars most wisely as we head toward Super Tuesday and beyond, Trump can count on the 24/7 news (or "news'") media to saturate every market for him for free. He gets wall to wall 24/7 coverage in every state even if he doesn't show up.
Many factors are at play in his success but that success has been, more than anything, TV ratings driven. It's The Donald Trump Runs for President Show and it's the most smashing success in reality TV history. Everybody wants their piece of those ratings.
Mittens, of all people, is telling the Donald to release his tax returns! And the N.Y. Times is reporting that Paul Ryan is struggling over how he can mesh the House GOP agenda with a Trump campaign platform. Talk about putting the proverbial square peg in the round hole!
They asked for it.