U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
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) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 09, 2021 06:54 AM UTC
20 Comments
Today is Extraterrestrial Culture Day
An old friend asked me last night if I thought the congress should go through with this impeachment or not.
The answer is yes. Emphatically, yes.
Senator Susan Collins of Maine gets my vote for "Most Loathsome". Are you ready to teach him another lesson, Susan? The first time you taught him he could get away with extortion, fraud, and lying to Congress.
Now do you want to teach him he can get away with treason?
Hm.
I have two questions about this impeachment: can it be delayed while the constitutionality question is referred to scotus; and can he be tried in federal court on charges of sedition, incitement, treason or whatever whether he's convicted of impeachment charges or not?
I think the first answer is, yes, by necessity, at some point. The second…dunno.
Answer to the second is certain – yes. Though the question of standing and jurisdiction would almost for sure be litigated.
There's no way SCOTUS is going to weigh in on the constitutionality. There's no procedural mechanism that would get it there, and the justices are going to view impeachment and the trial of the impeachment to be within Congress' exclusive purview. SCOTUS would be more likely to address it on the backend, say, if trump were convicted and barred from future office, and then tries to run for something again. Then there'd be a viable claim (e.g., ballot access) that could make the issue justiciable. Otherwise, I see virtually zero chance of SCOTUS weighing in. This was illustrated by CJ Roberts declining to preside at this second impeachment trial. He was required to preside over the first trial as the president was on trial then. Not so now.
Thanks for that insight. 👍
Thank you for responding.
I had a devil of a time finding the language in the constitution that wasn't annotated or "interpreted", but the chief justice is the only designated presider in the wording of the Constitution.
It seems to me that Roberts has already weighed in by not presiding. If I were [*]'s attorneys, I would have found some way to get the question before the scotUS before the trial began. Perhaps they knew it was baloney…but wait…baloney lawsuits haven't stopped [*] and his attorneys before.
Constitutional question isn't going to be referred to SCOTUS, by my guess. Neither side sees benefit in delay that could cause.
And yes, impeachment is only a "political" issue … there is no "double jeopardy" to prevent a prosecutor from following up (or an impeachment to follow a criminal process). You can read the fascinating tale of Judge Alcee Hastings (now Rep. Alcee Hastings) to see some interesting elements of the various processes.
I am already tired of talking heads saying T***p was already out of office when he was impeached. He was impeached on Jan. 13th.
Tell the "process" mavens to STFU.
For so-called constitutionalists, they don't seem to do very well on the constitution, do they?
Only when the constitution suits their purposes, just like any other issue with them.
Uber Righties read only the first two amendments, and hang the rest of the document in their outhouses.
It does basically end there. That's why I'd just love to ask Rep. Boebert what the third amendment is.
And they repeatedly ignore their beloved Scalia's language from DC v. Heller, "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Most of them don't know who Scalia was.
Q(bert) knows who he was… let's just hope that pillow wasn't manufactured by 'you know who':
Trump sees 'unusual' circumstances in Scalia's death amid conspiracy theories
Let's work for a Farm Bill that represents the challenges of a 21st-century economy.
Our food system is broken — there's a blueprint to fix it
Include strong incentives for cover crops that remove CO2 .
Agreed, V. We know agriculture has a significant role in combatting climate change; we've finally hit a tipping point with some of the major farm groups like AFBF. That's been a very 'Trump-like' scenario: they spent so many years demonizing Al Gore and the left over climate that when they finally understood they had to do something, they had the initial meeting behind closed doors so as not to agitate the very political mob they had created).
On nutrition, we've been having this conversation for over a decade: stop subsidizing the things that compromise our health (and as it turns out those commodities have a significant impact on the environment. I'll give Jerry's cow
fartsbelches a pass today given we already have ways to fix that problem. )