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*

(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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 26, 2018 11:57 AM UTC

Elections Matter: Trump Travel Ban Edition

  • 16 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
Nyahhhhhh…

ICYMI, the U.S. Supreme Court today issued a mammoth ruling upholding President Trump’s “Muslim travel ban.” From the Washington Post:

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that President Trump has the authority to ban travelers from certain majority-Muslim countries if he thinks it is necessary to protect the United States, a victory in what has been a priority since Trump’s first weeks in office and a major affirmation of presidential power.

The vote was 5 to 4, with conservatives in the majority and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. writing the opinion.

The president reacted on Twitter: “SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. Wow!”

Later, the White House issued a formal response that also took a swipe at his declared enemies. It called the ruling “a vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country.”

Lower courts had struck down each of the three iterations of the president’s travel ban, the first of which was issued in January 2017. The administration had been hopeful about the Supreme Court, because it had previously decided to let the ban go into effect while considering the challenges to it.

Regardless of your opinion on this issue, the Supreme Court’s ruling is a great reminder — on the day of Colorado’s Primary Election, no less — that elections have consequences. This doesn’t happen if Hillary Clinton is elected President; not only would Clinton not have instituted such a proposal, but she wouldn’t have nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

So go out and vote today.

Comments

16 thoughts on “Elections Matter: Trump Travel Ban Edition

  1. What do you mean "elections matter"?  Obama won the 2016 presidential election handily.  Scalia dies while Obama is in office, but McConnell and the GOP stole the Supreme Court seat allowing Trump to make the appointment of Gorsuch and, voila,  we get a 5-4 ruling today.

    Elections don't matter in the US anymore.  They don't fucking matter, not if Dems meekly allow the GOP to disregard the Constitution. 

    Next up — the GOP and Trump will disregard the Mueller report.  Then, it will be time for a revolution…..

      1. I disagree — he won the Electoral and popular vote in 2012 and 2016.  But, it's actually irrelevant.  He was the President and had the authority to appoint the next SCOTUS with the advice and consent of the Senate.  The GOP's Senate's refusal to consider the nomination was Constitutional theft, pure and simple.  But, go ahead and nitpick, pea brain.

        1. Wasn't Hillary Clinton the Democratic candidate in 2016? (You really should put down whatever it is you're ingesting. You're starting to sound like MADCO.)  

          On the other hand, you’re making Zappatero sound stable and balanced.

              1. Yep, today in Hypocrisy Theater, we learn the following lesson:

                The Court’s holding in Trump v. Hawaii is particularly outrageous in light of its recent decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop. In that case, the Court found statements by civil rights commissioners that were qualitatively and quantitatively much weaker evidence of religious evidence sufficient to render an application of civil rights law unconstitutional. As Sotomayor argues, “the Court recently found less pervasive official expressions of hostility and the failure to disavow them to be constitutionally significant. It should find the same here.”

                The lesson of course is “It’s good to be a Fundamentalist Christian, the one and only religion, right?”

  2. Not so mich elections matter.  More like you can't negotiate with Republicans.  Because they always operate in bad faith.  That SCOTUS seat is a prime example of that fact.

  3. Took him three tries and he just barely manages to ban North Koreans and Venezuelans from seeking refuge? Pathetic even by the right's measurements.

    Course his Trumpits will trumpet this as a win, but he is 99% failing at doing what he said he'd do: "a total and complete shutdown on Muslims entering the US"

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

39 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!