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%
June 10, 2019 12:34 PM UTC
20 Comments
If this were 2020, we’d be two weeks away from the Primary Election. It’s time to “
You need to specify — that would be Primary Election (part 2). Colorado is slated to have the Presidential primary on March 3.
The dickhead drumpf, thought by the trump-cultist zombies to be the gop's long-sought racist/fascistic/authoritarian salvation, is proving/will continue to prove to be the cause of the extreme right-wing criminal enterprise's (i.e. the gop's) inevitable demise.
That's incorrect. The substantive ruling came from a federal court of appeals. SCOTUS simply refused to hear the case, and it's well established that the Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal is not an ruling on the merits of the underlying decision.
Not quite, Genghis. SCOTUS inaction means the Court of Appeals ruling becomes mandatory precedent in the Circuit involved, and persuasive precedent in all other circuits. Of more consequence, the Screaming Yam administration joined in urging that the lower court ruling not be overturned. The NRA was not amused.
Be still, my heart! Yammie-pie's minions did something right? I hope they don't let it go to their heads.
Yes indeed! The brief of the Yammatollah Administration's Justice Department arguing that the Second Amendment doesn't protect silencers or short barreled rifles is available here.
Well … no. It's the court of appeals opinion that's binding authority in-circuit and persuasive authority elsewhere. That happens as soon as a court of appeals issues an opinion for publication, and is in no way dependent on SCOTUS inaction. The only ways such an opinion can lose its precedential effect are reversal or vacatur by the court of appeals in an en banc review proceeding, or reversal or vacatur by SCOTUS. The mere fact that the losing party in the court of appeals petitioned for cert. has no effect at all the court of appeals ruling. Unless the court of appeals or SCOTUS stays the court of appeals opinion pending review (whether sua sponte or on motion of a party), the opinion remains precedent and the judgment remains binding on the parties throughout the certiorari process.
In any event, the original point stands. The statement that SCOTUS "ruled on Monday that firearm 'silencers' are not protected by the Second Amendment" is incorrect as a simple matter of fact. See Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995) (denial of cert. is not a ruling on the case's merits); Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U.S. 912 (1950) (denial of cert. means nothing except that fewer than four justices considered the case worthy of SCOTUS review).
To me, the silencer thing wasn't even the most interesting part of the Tenth Circuit decision. That honor belongs to the holding that short-barreled rifles don't qualify for Second Amendment protection.
You're splitting hairs — And wrong. Obviously, denial of cert strenghens at least the persuasive precedent weight — which granting cert would somewhat weaken.
You are on stronger ground with the short barrel observation.
Denial of cert only means that the Court does not see any immediate need to intervene. In this case, though, the Court has developed an extensive track record of denying cert to cases involving state restrictions on firearms that aren't de facto bans on ownership; it's not surprising they denied the petition.
So, no, the Court didn't set a precedent here. But it doesn't take a lot to read between the lines: SCOTUS is okay with state-based 2nd Amendment restrictions so long as they're reasonable. This is in line with even the "screw the part about the militia" rulings from the Court.
Perhaps, but it is still a good occasion for RMGO and NRA to send out a fundraising letter squealing about Obama and his judges coming for everyone's guns.
Remember, the Deep State is the gift that just keeps giving.
lol
You imply that a published federal court of appeals opinion doesn't "become[]" precedent until after "SCOTUS inaction," but I'm wrong.
Whatever you say, chief. 
lol
Lacking any actual authority for a contention, the next best thing is positing incontestability by leading with the adverb "obviously."
Surely no one will notice!
You known, come to think of it, there were at least two legal issues in that case that are more interesting than the silencer thing. One was short barreled rifles being outside the scope of the Second Amendment, and the other had to do with the interplay between the National Firearms Act and that silly-assed Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act (lol "SAPA").
Yet the media blabbers on about silencers, and all too many sources (Colorado Pols included) falsely state that SCOTUS "ruled" the Second Amendment doesn't apply to silencers. The state of reporting on legal issues is, as always, trash. And I am a dumbass for hoping that'll ever change.
You implied that failure to grant cert is meaningless. I nailed you on the fact that the lack of review locked down the mandatory within the circuit and persuasive elsewhere status. I was right. You were wrong. It's not arguable.
You aren't a dumbass,just an egomaniac who refuses to admit he overlooked the obvious.
Hey, it happens. When you dry your tears, take a bow for flagging the follow up points.
unlike your efforts at pettifoggery, those were important.
And any day I get to use the word pettifoggery” is a good day.
Well … no. I said (not implied) "it's well established that the Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal is not an ruling on the merits of the underlying decision." That's s true statement.
I also said (not implied) that denial of a cert petition means only that fewer than four justices voted in favor of hearing the case. Also true. See Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U.S. 912 (1950). Thus, a cert denial is not "meaningless," but the meaning it has is quite limited.
lol
The judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado will be surprised (many of them pleasantly, I suspect) to learn that they're free to disregard published opinions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit if there's a petition for writ of certiorari pending in the Supreme Court. You should give those poor trial court judges a heads-up.
Oh, hell yeah. On that point there is no room for debate or discussion.
You just can't quit while you're behind, can you? The hole is if cert is granted, then the possibility exists of overturning the whole case — or upholding it, either way setting national precedent.
1–It's not unusual in such a case to see several cases in other venues delayed until Scotus gives guidance.
2. In the real world, persuasive precedent has whatever value a judge gives it. Obviously, it bears less weight if SCOTUS is reviewing the case. How.much less, who knows. In many cases, probably a lot less. Appellate courts are horribly overworked and, where possible, some will just be put on hold until Scotus rules.
3. Do you even know what the word "persuasive" means? It's Greek for Genghis is a dickhead who won't quit digging when he's in a hole.
Now goeth now to the land of the pettifoggers. You have amused the adults with your foolishness long enough.
lol
Yep, that's what the hole is, all right.
Also, lmao@"overturning the whole case" being a converse of "setting national precedent." This is ripping good stuff!
But hey, much love to your viewpoint that a published U.S. Court of Appeals opinion doesn't "become[]" precedent if a cert petition is pending. The viewpoint is false, of course, but that matters nary a whit here in 2019 Amerikka. If you close your eyes and wish really really hard, maybe phlogiston theory will make a comeback as well.
I hate to be the one to tell you, but there are multiple circuit courts. Without cert, an opinion from, say, the 10th, is only what is known as "persuasive" precedent on all oth er jurisdictions. Only if scotus grants cert and rules on the case does it become binding precedent nationwide in all 12 circuits.
Now that you know that, I'm sure you see how stupid you sound to argue that granting cert –or conversely denying it, is inconsequential. Either way, it's a highly consequential a ction.
so we're agreed. I was right. You were wrong.
glad we settled that
I'm only watching half this conversation, but the pattern is familiar. I can only offer this in support:
Has anyone gone out on a welfare check on Negev?
He's like Beetlejuice — just say his name a time or two and he pops up.
I usually think Moderatus when someone says "welfare check," but of course in that instance we're talking a whole 'nother sort of welfare check.