U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(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) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
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 30, 2009 06:56 AM UTC
27 Comments
Remember just a year ago we had so many of our congresspeople to be embarrased about. Yet now we can take pride in having one of the best groups ever in Washington.
and it makes me shudder how subhumans like Virginia Foxx ever make it to congress.
The error was the House Clerk’s. At the time I wrote the blog entry, Coffman’s name was in the “no” column. The RCV page has since been updated.
And the record still shows that he voted to kill the bill just a few minutes earlier.
So apparently Rep. Coffman had a last-minute change of heart, which is definitely a good thing that he deserves kudos for.
Must be losing their respective minds rights about now.
If there was an amendment to make sure we finally get to the bottom of all those Muslim prayer rugs and diaries written in arabic in the Texas desert.
.
doesn’t that undermine the basic argument ?
Ms. Foxx did not say that the murder of Mr. Shepard was a hoax.
She said that the interpretation that he was killed because he was homosexual was a hoax.
He was killed in the course of a robbery. We can all agree to that.
He was singled out and victimized because of his sexual orientation. The perpetrators believed that made him more vulnerable, and exploited that to get him to cooperate in their manipulation.
I believe, and I don’t know if this was ever proven, that they held him in contempt because of his sexual orientation, and that selecting him as their victim for robbery was based on that hatred. Robbing him could rightly be called a hate crime.
But the whole thing about “Hate crime legislation” that offends the Constitution is that it makes a crime of a person’s thoughts.
The other side of that coin is that, for the killing of Mr. Shepard to be a hate crime, the killers had to intend to kill him, which I don’t think they did. I believe Mr. Shepard died because of their unspeakable disregard for the sanctity of human life when that life came in a form they found repulsive.
I find it abhorrent that Mr. Shepard was picked on because he was gay. Unconscionable.
But the crime is no worse than if he had been picked out for robbery strictly at random.
Now, if he had been tortured by his killers, which I never heard alleged,
I would guess that was another hate crime.
But my impression is that the murder was unintentional.
Thus, its impossible that they intentionally killed him for his orientation.
Ergo, the hoax.
.
You said it better than I could have:
That is worse than being victimized at random.
And when someone dies as the result of a severe beating, vicious torture (he was tortured) and then being exposed to the elements after being tied up for 18 hours in the Wyoming cold, it doesn’t matter whether they intended to kill him or not. When you beat someone to within an inch of their life and leave them to die, that is murder no matter how you cut it.
This would have been a hate crime even if Matthew had lived.
The only hoax is the one being perpetrated saying this was just a robbery gone bad. If that was the case they never would have used the reprehensible “gay panic” defense.
We need to pass this legislation to make it clear that these kinds of crimes are nothing short of the most heinous that can be committed in this society.
It may only be symbolic, but it’s the right thing to do.
Knowing that you believe that, your incorrect position on “hate crimes legislation” is more understandable.
But that statement is just not true.
Heinous ? Undoubtedly. In some of these cases, people are tormented precisely because they are weak. That’s very, very bad.
The most heinous possible ? My friend, you do not know the limits of inhumanity. The most heinous crimes are those perpetrated against the very young and the very sick.
.
.
Yes, absolutely, he was murdered. No question.
But, significantly, he was not intentionally murdered. Its almost worse that the killers didn’t care if he lived or died. Killing him quickly might have been the “humane” thing to do, in a universe of moral relativism.
So, if killing him was not their intent, then they could not have intentionally killed him because of his orientation.
That leaves the robbery and the torture as potential hate crimes, but not the murder.
Thus, Ms. Foxx is correct when she calls “hoax.”
Hey, don’t feel bad. Even Keith Olberman doesn’t get it, yet.
.
if they beat him and left him tied up because he was gay, then he was murdered because he was gay. The murder was caused by the hate crime, hence it is a hate crime.
I’m not surprised you don’t get it, but don’t treat me like I’m stupid or something because we disagree.
If it could be argued that they didn’t intend for him to die (meaning second-degree murder or something lower), they did intend to beat, torture, kidnap, and tie him up because he was gay. And we know this because they said so. Of course the fact that Matthew Shepard died as a direct result of the very aggravated underlying crimes aggravated the murder up to first degree (actually I think it may have been “felony murder,” but my memory is foggy on that).
The point being that in the presence of a hate crime law it’s possible the hate crime enhancement could have applied to any of the underlying crimes for which intent was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
and kidnapping.
Thanks for the clarification BTW.
That Rep. Foxx has now apologized for these comments regarding the “hoax”, so she’s not even sticking to that statement either…
Kind of a weird person to be carrying water for. Sentence enhancements are a common practice in criminal justice; often determined by the viciousness of the crime, weapon used, motivation involved, or the vulnerability of the victim.
Violent crimes that single out a person for their social identity are a certain crime that targets not just the victim, but freedom of the overall social order. A sentence enhancement in such cases is quite appropriate.
This doesn’t make the utterances of the loathsome Fred Phelps or Lou Sheldon illegal. At the same time, motivation in the commission of a crime is not First Amendment issue.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/…
In the interview he discussed how he used to be opposed to hate crimes because he felt it gave a certain class of citizens preferential treatment in the law.
He then went on to discuss how he has seen the impact hate crimes have on members of that community and that has caused him to become a supporter of the hate crime laws.
He used it as an example of how he learns from experience (true). But it also is a very good reason to support these laws.
Barron, if you can say something like that, you really don’t know enough about the Shepard murder to draw your conclusions.
McKinney and Henderson lashed him to a fence, pistol-whipped him FIFTY times and left him, in the middle of nowhere, on a freezing cold night. If that doesn’t display intent to end a life, I honestly don’t know what could.
of course, he misrepresents the facts immediately after critizing others for misrepresenting the facts.
First, I an a liberal individual and generally agree with most things liberals stand for, but something concerns me about any hate crime legislation. Should we make a persons thoughts against the law. We can get someone for murder and robbery like wesaw in the recent trial of an individual for the murder of a transexual. I can understand and appreciate efforts to put hate crimes on the books, but to make a persons innermost thoughts and motivations illegal unto themselves bothers me. I am sorry and please don’t jump all over me with hate and vitriol, but this a honest genuine thought from somebody who doesn’t hate anybody becaust they are male, female, black,brown, yellow hetrosexual, gay, lesbian or what have you it is a genuine concern about a concept that bothers me.
If you kill someone in self-defense, it’s legal.
If you kill someone accidentally, it’s manslaughter.
If you kill someone intentionally, it’s first degree murder.
There are a number of variations, but I don’t watch enough cop shows to remember what they are.
In any case, we always take into account the motive behind an action, not just the final result, when prosecuting crimes. This is an additional distinction, but the idea that motive matters is not new.
I don’t think this is a “thoughtcrime” sort of thing, because nobody gets prosecuted just for thinking gay people are gross. It’s only when you actually hurt someone that it matters.
but we always take intent into account, and that’s what hate-crime laws truly measure. sxp is right about the distinctions we make for criminal acts with the same end result. We also prosecute child molesters more harshly if they are in a position of trust, and, as Barney Frank pointed out during the House debate yesterday, we prosecute someone who murders a member of Congress more harshly. Opponents of the current hate-crime legislation simply don’t want to extend to gays and transgenders the same legal protection already afforded for race, ethnicity and religion (two of which are innate and one of which is clearly a choice).
It’s also worth pointing out, as I believe RSB did above, that hate-crime laws are sentencing enhancers, so their actual effect isn’t seen as clearly in a prosecution like the Andrade conviction, because he’s already been sentenced to life without parole.
But plenty of hate crimes are aggravated assaults and a hate-crime enhancer can have a significant effect on sentencing.
By the same token, so to speak, without bias-motived laws, someone who spray paints swastikas on a synagogue could face a petty graffiti charge or a more serious charge. Does Cigar Guy and his ilk really fail to see the distinction? Or is it just gays they want kept outside the law?
Hey RedGreen you fool, I said that I don’t care avout someones sexual preferences or didn’t you bother to read. I support gay marrage as I feel that who am I to prevent someone from being happy. So read something before you attack!!
Firstly, it’s not about thoughts and feelings, but about the additional act of stoking terror in a community that’s often targeted.
Secondly, one can not be convicted of a hate crime alone; one has to be convicted of the underlying offense first. So even if you think terrorizing a community is not an overt act deserving of extra punishment but is actually “innermost thoughts and motivations,” it is not possible to be convicted of them :unto themselves.”
It equates to lynching laws banned only in the 1950’s. Let’s hope it passes the Senate.
.
most of what is posted on this site is just shilling for one entrenched position or another,
but this thread has helped me to see a broader view of this topic. Thanks to all.
.