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%
July 18, 2017 12:00 AM UTC
37 Comments
Putin not only bought, . . .
. . . he signed up for the TrumpskiFriends&Family plan.
64 percent of Americans agree:
Trump Stinks!
Stay upwind, my friends.
So now we are going to get "Repeal but don't Replace"…..
Until later. Maybe. Or maybe not.
How did we get here?
To understand that, you need to go back a quarter of a century. Newly-elected President Clinton assigned his wife the task of putting together a healthcare plan. Hillary, aided by her trusted consigilieri, Ira Magaziner, put together a committee which met in secret (sound familiar?) and came up with a government-run healthcare plan which was derisively labeled, Hillarycare. A government-run healthcare plan from Hillary. Yes boys and girls, once upon a time, Hillary Clinton was a big government liberal. But I digress….
The Republicans in the House were aghast. TV commercials featuring Harry and Louise appeared trashing the ideas behind Hillarycare. But the Republicans back then – unlike those of today – realized that you can't beat something with nothing. So Newt Gingrich and his friends at the right wing think tanks came up with something called a market-based solution which included something called an "individual mandate."
Stalemate. The Clintons, advised by Bill's consiglieri, Dick Morris, decided to take small steps (i.e., the CHIP program) rather than something yuge or bigley. Clinton was re-elected.
During the 8 years under G.W. Bush, we were too busy looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq bother with health care.
In comes Obama and a Democratic Congress. But Obama, being the raging moderate that he was, decided to take the single payer option off the table, and after having his hand bitten when he reached out to Republicans, eventually signed the market-based solution which included the individual mandate.
The GOP denounced it and promised that if restored as the majority party, they would rip out Obamacare by its roots. They proceeded to vote for repealing the A.C.A. dozen and dozens of times, knowing damn well that their votes were meaningless because Obama would veto anything they passed.
But, they said, give us a Republican House, Senate and President and we promise we will get rid of the God-awful thing. Last fall, they got a Republican House, Senate and President. But they can't repeal it now because they'd have to live with the consequences.
Let's kill the repeal and make these motherfuckers choke on all of their attempts to repeal ACA. Their comeuppance is long overdue.
The 60+ hairballs our junior senator cast in the lower chamber are going to be simply delicious as they journey back upwards through the esophagus. This cast of Keystone Cops masquerading as the most powerful old white men in the world will soon propose yet another brilliant plan to keep the #TwoScoopsBase from rioting CapHill. They are as predictable as a dog licking his underparts. They just 'can't not'.
You are correct that the 1993 Task Force that Hillary Clinton led was secretive. However, before a bill was introduced in Congress, there were weeks of open committee hearings, including several days of testimony by Hillary before various committees. The bill was debated was debated and marked up for almost a year (from November 1993 until the November 1994 elections killed any prospects of passage), and Congress entertained dozens of alternative proposals.
Comparing that process to the clown show that is the current Congress is historically inaccurate.
Touché……there was a good deal more transparency later in the process in '93-'94. And there was a hell of a lot of transparency in the process in '09-'10.
There's a number of comments about Don. That's Tropical Storm Don, not the other one. Huffington has a roundup of some of the best.
Naomi Klein's new video: No is Not Enough
This was released with her book of the same name. It's about surviving the Trump years with democracy, if not intact, still alive. It’s important.
I wonder what Gardner's conscience is telling him.
"Vote for the repeal because that will show Obama whose in charge and everyone looking will know that we finally defeated that uppity person of color."
Is that really his reasoning for his actions? Does he even have a conscience to arrest the disabled because they are being a nuisance?
You know he will be an automatic YES for repeal with no replace. He will have no doubts about. He might think that everyone is looking in admiration at what an amazing job he is doing but to everyone else those are aghast looks of WTF. You get a sense that he is just as in love with himself as Trump.
Does he even have a conscience to arrest the disabled because they are being a nuisance?
He does not. Although we have been told that not everything he does is evil.
Trump, not surprisingly, is clueless as ever:
This is tough on trolls — try following (much less defending) this pinball zig-zag "policy position" on healthcare "reform":
Trump wants "something, anything" done. In high school biology class, we observed that. It is known as Brownian Motion.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/18/trump-blindsided-by-healthcare-collapse-240657
I'm waiting for him to call McConnell in to the Oval and on live TV say, "you're fired!"
As much as Trump probably wishes he could do that, he'll just continue undercutting his own presidency by venting his id via Twitter.
His VP and Cabinet on the other hand, could do that to Trump via the 25th Amendment. The only thing preventing them is the realization that to about 20% of the most rabid GOP base, that would be seen as a coup, and destroy what little unity remains in the GOP.
Donnie is busy #winning on the Iran thingy. You know, that one he was going to tear up?
Trump Recertifies Iran Nuclear Deal, but Only Reluctantly
If the intelligence agencies won't manufacture evidence of Iranian violations to justify new sanctions, then I guess he'll have to call up Darth Cheney and get his minions working on it.
Trump really did screw the pooch with the intelligence community and he'll continue to pay the price for as long as he manages to hold onto the Presidency.
They've got him by the balls.
AG Jeff Sessions wants to ramp up Federal asset seizure
Does anyone know how that would work with Colorado's new law against asset seizure?
Will this be like sanctuary cities or legal cannabis, where law enforcement jurisdictions get to choose whether they obey the Feds or their state?
Heard of the Supremacy clause?
It is up to the feds.
I see you crawled out of your hole.
Are you tired of winning yet? Frankly, I'm a little fatigued after last night's tag team tweets by Moran and Lee buried that brain fart which Mitch McConnell let rip, followed by this morning's burial of Repeal without Replace by the three sisters of the GOP.
So in this instance, we can put you down in the "Big Government – Feds are A-OK" column, as opposed to state's rights and Freedom! ?
Is that just when Republicans are in charge of Federal government and Democrats in charge of state government?
The reason I mentioned Sanctuary cities and court decisions on cannabis are that Colorado has found legal ways to go its own way, in spite of Federal policy, on immigration law and on cannabis enforcement.
MJ:
I was just telling you what the law is.
The feds have the power to crack down on cannabis and sanctuary cities, they have just so far turned the other cheek.
If there is a conflict between state law and federal law, federal law wins.
OK….assuming that this is true, and I'm not enough of a legal expert to know, why would the Federal government "turn the other cheek" on these two issues, but not on asset forfeiture?
Isn't Sessions setting himself up to look like a weakling again? As a teacher, I know you can't set a rule you don't plan to enforce.
I think it's because the US congress has carved out a set of exceptions, at least on cannabis, that says that the Feds won't seek to override Colorado's statutes. It seems like there was a Supreme court decision or two in there, as well.
I don't feel like researching it at the moment, but there are probably folks on here that know the state vs. fed conflicts very well.
EDIT: Ok, I researched it anyway. On cannabis law, at least, Sessions faces a fairly formidable hurdle. In 2014, the Rohrbacher Farr budget amendment prohibited the Justice Dept. from interfering with state medical marijuana laws. To overturn that, they’d have to take it out of the budget. So the Feds just concentrate on people shipping pot outside state lines.
My sense is that the governors and states would have another healthcare -like fight on their hands, with people having smoke-ins and die-ins and what not. So they’d probably want to do it without any publicity. Does anyone know if that’s happening with the proposed Trump budget now?
Then on sanctuary cities, 200 – 650 jurisdictions are choosing not to notify the Federal government when they incarcerate someone without citizenship documents. They can decide not to even ask about immigration status. Some decide based on criminal history; all violent criminals are deported.
So far, Trump tried to do an executive order cutting federal funds from sanctuary cities; this was blocked by a district judge as unconstitutional. This conflict plays out in many Denver and Greeley and Pueblo neighborhoods, with Federal ICE personnel showing up at schools and courthouses and neighborhoods to make surprise raids. I don’t know if any municipalities are fighting this, but courts and schools have made it clear ICE isn’t welcome to stalk immigrants there.
So the way I see it, with this new stated policy on asset seizure, Sessions is setting the stage for another battle that he really can’t win. Unless a person is tried in Federal court for a Federal offense, it’s unlikely that he is going to be able to get the person’s assets seized. In Colorado at least, we have in theory, a whole new ball game. There may be states that are more willing to go along with Sessions.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/25/politics/sanctuary-cities-injunction/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/15/us/politics/marijuana-laws-state-federal.html
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/17/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-sanctuary-policies-fact-check/
Of course it isn't true, mj. Carnholio is just proving once again that he is an ignorant chicken-flavored lollipop, to use the late Lenny Bruce's wondrous euphemism. The ninth amendment grants States the power to give additional rights to their citizens, as long as they don't fall short of federal rights. Several states, including Colorado, have chosen to do just that in regard to recreational and/or medical marijuana.
Likewise, the 10th amendment underscores that the feds are limited to their enumerated powers. Powers not specifically granted to the feds are reserved to the States or to the citizens in their private capacity. Carnholio the Stupid can't list an enumerated right for the feds to regulate marijuana because it doesn't exist. Yes, there will be pushing and shoving but in the end the 9th and 10th amendments will crush Carnholio and his fascist overlords.
In contrast, feds can overrule sanctuary cities because obviously controlling immigration is a federal function. Besides, most sanctions to sanctuary cities consist of withholding federal handouts. It's the golden rule and if you want the king's gold, you have to follow the king's rule.
Thanks, V. Negev & Elliot, please weigh in.
I've been reading up on the state vs. federal law and current court cases regarding seizure of assets. It helps to understand the background with the US Constitution and how it applies to immigration and cannabis law conflicts.
Right off the bat, a couple of things are jumping out at me:
What Sessions is doing is trying to roll back the Eric Holder (former AG) limits on "Equitable Sharing", a policy which allows states to confiscate property without a warrant or criminal charge, keep 80% of the property, as long as they "share" it with the Federal government.
When Hick signed HB1313, he limited how much $$ the state can keep in that Equitable Sharing federal process. Only amounts over $50,000 can be "shared" with the Feds. This allows lower income people to keep or at least contest seizures of their stuff, say in routine traffic stops. It's a good law that had bipartisan support.
The Supreme Court of the US recently ruled in a Colorado case that exonerated criminals have the right to refunds of seized property, that the state can't just keep their stuff, regardless of the equitable sharing rule. This would probably apply to civil asset forfeiture, as well.
So it looks like I was right – Sessions is setting up for an epic Constitutional smackdown here. In the quest for dollars to fund ????? , he is going to unite people across the political spectrum against him.
I'd like to hear from Negev (because Sessions is talking about seizing illegal guns) and Elliot (because he's a libertarian lawyer) on this issue.
Very little of what is being put forth in this thread is correct.
The Supremacy Clause applies when federal and state laws conflict. If Congress has "occupied the field," state law has to give way to federal law. There is no such conflict in the civil forfeiture rules. The federal rules will apply to federal enforcement actions. The state rules will apply to state (and local) enforcement.
Federal law regarding marijuana remains in force in Colorado and other states that have legalized pot, and everyone involved in the pot business (whether state-legal or not) is doing so under a cloud of potential federal prosecution–of which there have been many. Congress's authority to legislate in this area can be found in the Commerce Clause and/or the Necessary and Proper Clause. See Gonzales v. Raich, a 2005 US Supreme Court case regarding private growing of medical marijuana in California. There is no reasonable Ninth or Tenth Amendment argument otherwise.
The Rohrabacher-Farr amendment prohibits DOJ spending on prosecutions related to medical marijuana only. It doesn't affect DOJ prosecutions of recreational marijuana businesses and users, and it doesn't protect medical marijuana businesses or users who are violating their state's laws. Further, that interpretation only applies in the Ninth Circuit. It is possible that the Tenth Circuit, which includes Colorado, would come to a different conclusion regarding the scope of the amendment if the issue were to be litigated in our circuit.
Because States have conferred a specific right to medical and or recreational pot, old time, the 9th and 10th amendments are definitely pertinent. The last time The feds adopted prohibition, the needed a specific amendment, the 18th , to give them authority to override statelaw. Before and after that, authority to ban or legalze alcohol was a state function.
It's true that the infinitely elastic commerce clause has been use to regulate drugs, but those cases were without a specific state law conferring a specific right. In a constitutional shootout, the ninth and Tenth amendments should best a Congress utterly devoid of an enumerated power to enforce reefer madness. The infinitely elastic commerce clause is a particular target of the new generation of originalist judges now coming to power.
The issue was settled in Gonzales v. Raich.
I doubt that your legal analysis is better than that of six U.S. Supreme Court Justices (the majority consisted of Scalia, Kennedy, Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer).
Well, the 9th circuit did strike down the feds and the number of States with ninth and 10th amend claims has risen exponentially today. I wouldn't be afraid to take the case back to court under explicit 9th and 10th amend ment grounds
Three of the old majority are now gone
Old time, tell me if I have this right on how the Fed vs state conflict is shaking down in these 3 areas.
CO cannabis law:
Right now, Feds can't spend $$ to enforce fed laws in states which allow medical marijuana. This does not apply to recreational pot use, and Sessions has signaled that he intends to step in somehow, although our Congressional delegation is pushing back.
Immigration: ICE, a Federal agency, is conducting raids and detaining immigrants throughout Colorado, regardless of whether a locality has said it is a "sanctuary city" that won't ask about immigration status. There isn't anything CO can do about this, although courthouses & schools can ask ICE not to raid their premises. This one makes me nervous for my students. They're terrified.
Civil Asset forfeiture (CAF):
CO just put HR1313 in place, which provides that when seized property is valued less than $50,000, local law enforcement can't keep it. When it's over $50,000, it can still be shared with Feds through "Equitable Sharing". But what Sessions has done is toss out the limits on CAF that AG Holder put in place. You wrote on another thread that jurisdictions apply; that Sessions carte blanche on CAF seizure would only apply to Federal, not State cases. Do I have that right?
Also, what impact do you think that this Supreme Court decision will have on CAF in CO?
I thought you and Sessions were proud "state's rights" guys? WTF? Did the cleaners get your sheets mixed up? . . .
. . . it's getting to where one needs a scorecard to know who's on whose team any given day . . .
2 Live Drew is as States Rights as he wants to be.
Wonder if his sad ACA story is what happened last night and he could see the future.
Yeah, well, if he yaps any more about the federal "supremacy clause" his Klavern buddies are likely to revoke his David Duke Secret Dog-Whistle Decoder pin . . .
Maybe Sessions will create a precedent for using Asset Forfeiture for good instead of evil.
Let's say some guy runs a bogus University. Can the Feds come in and take all his assets?
Or if a mortgage company "loses" loan documents….
Or, a coal company pollutes a river…
Or, an oil company blows up somebody's house.
Lemur of Doom Sessions seems unlikely to use Asset forfeiture for good….but, hope springs eternal, I suppose.
He's come out with some really unlikely statements about protecting transgender people from murder, and standing up for LGBT rights. Of course, these are not backed with any law or policy, so basically hot air.
In more crumbling Trump Administration news — turns out there was a money launderer also at the Donny Jr. meeting in Trump Tower, and Mueller's team is all over it!
Seems as if all the pieces are falling into place and the investigations are now following the money. Kushner, if you recall, is being investigated for his part in the mysterious backchannel banking connection to Russia.