CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 01, 2017 01:06 PM UTC
9 Comments
So local you'll almost forget he wants to destroy the planet and take away women's rights.
This post is devoid of any meaningful thought. Its premise is a federal judge should base his decisions upon their popularity with the local populace. Silly me, I thought they were charged with following the Constitution and Laws.
The first paragraph explains it all.
"Around Colorado, we’ve noticed a fair amount of support for Neil Gorsuch. He is, of course, a homegrown Coloradoan who has served on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver for over a decade. Despite Gorsuch’s lengthy tenure on the bench, his decisions have not always reflected the views of his constituents."
It is fair to be for or against a judge for any number of reasons. The reason posited is not one of them.
It is very rare for AC to be right. This is that rarity. The vile stupidity of demanding that a judge pander to his constituents insults the memory of many judges who defended the rights of black defendants in the Jim Crow south. Tell these idiots that federal judges are not elected and their only "constituents" are the laws and the constitution. It isn' t easy to know less about our constitutional system than AC. But Hillary Larson almost miraculously proved herself dumber than an internet troll
I hate to spot A.C. points as much as you do, V, but I gotta this time. What's wrong with this essay? Let's see…the first thing I noticed was Coloradoan. Since she wasn't referencing the Fort Collins newspaper, that's a strike against her already. Second, you're right, V., judges don't have a constituency. And lastly, yes, "it could be worse." is the yardstick we'll be using for the foreseeable future.
So Judges don't have "constituents", and that word should be replaced with "reasonable people" or "mainstream judicial thinkers", or "Constitutional scholars" or some phrase reflecting that this is the Supreme Court of the United States Gorsuch has been nominated to join, and the tenth Federal circuit court of appeals that he has served on for a decade.
Other than that unfortunate choice, I see nothing wrong in the post; all Larson's arguments against Gorsuch's stances are valid, whether on reproductive rights, on environmental interests and consumers vs. corporate interests.
I have seen other articles which seem to imply a Colorado "constituency" – the implication is that Gorsuch must be in touch with "western values", whatever those are. Larson is right to say that this specious argument is advanced to argue for Gorsuch's nomination.Her piece would have been stronger had she left Colorado out of it.
But trust V to attack the person rather than the argument, the factual basis, or the reasoning. That's what he does.
I'm in favor of the Senate refusing to confirm or to allow Gorsuch to get an up or down vote for as long as the GOP Senators held up the nomination for Garland.
It's not likely to succeed, but "likely" went out the window last year, and hasn't even phoned home yet.
Trust MJ to launch the vicious personal smear to mask being caught spewing ignorance, as she did by vilifying me for / proving her wrong with her screed that mainstream media were trying to hide the fact that the dnc again defeated the motion against donations by lobbyists. I proved her wrong and she responded by swearing to block all my posts. Obviously she didn't do that or she wouldn't be furious with me for fflogging hillary larson's belief that federal jjudges should reflect the prejudices of the "constituents" they serve. Well, they ain't elected and they are supposed to serve justice, not ward heelers or lobbyists. Read "The Scottsboro Boys" to find how elected judges sacrificed their careers to avoid a judicial murder of black men falsely accused of raping white prostitutes. That is too heavy a lift for mj, so she can just read To kill a mockingbird."
As to Western values, the only ones I know are declaring our rugged individualism while trying to make Eastern taxpayers pay for our agricultural subsidies, our oil and gas subsidies and our use of public lands at low rents which, bundy style, we don't even pay.
That was obliging of you to demonstrate my point for me, V.
AC's original critique of Larson's "constituency" argument is valid, although his hyperbole that the post is "devoid of any meaningful thought" is not.
Your expansion of the critique against the constituency argument is valid, although your statement that Larson is "dumber than an internet troll" is not.
Neither of you acknowledged the valid arguments against Gorsuch's nomination.
For myself, my intent was to assure Larson not to take the personal attacks personally, as this is, demonstrably, "what V does' when confronting disagreement on an issue. I'm sure she will research her basic Constitutional knowledge about the functions of the three branches of government more carefully in her next diary – and I hope that there will be a next diary, and that she will not be driven from the site by your vitriol, as others have.
Authors Hillary Larson and Sarah Brooks apparently are advocates for environmental protection and reproductive choice. That's great and sure to earn them appreciative readers on those issues.
But nominees for the Supreme Court are a bit of a different thing. The writing mistakes one element that AC calls out — and I wind up agreeing with him.
The other point I would make is that Gorsuch is opposed to free rein for administrative agencies. That can be positive or negative. Frankly, if Scott Pruitt is the person setting the direction, I'm all in favor of a high bar of skepticism about administrative rule making. I'd prefer there to be a close adherence to legislation. New regulations should be evaluated against the current status of law, administrative rules and actual practice. Administrative rules ought NOT get a presumption of "reasonableness" that says it is the burden of those opposing them must show actual error in process or intentional bias to justify review.
Bear in mind that while it is based in Denver,the 10th circuit also includes Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, kansas, and New Mexico. The underlying jurisdictions are far from uniformly liberal.