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%
May 03, 2022 07:11 AM UTC
50 Comments
Oh, I dunno. Maybe Susan has learned her lesson???
"I got played, you guys!"
Okay! Ms Collins is ready to lead the effort to expand the Supreme Court, right?!! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
She's a perfect example of what's wrong with people who have no convictions, or refuse to act on the few they have.
👍Yep.
I'm at that point in life where I need a stronger word than *uck!!!!
I settled on "Christ on a pogo stick!" Mike.
Inconsistent with what they told you? Perhaps.
Inconsistent with their past rulings, writings, and statements? Not at all.
Yeah, like Republicans who were shocked again and again at each new depth of depravity of Trump. Who could've guessed…
As for Susan Collins, a fool and her constitutional rights soon go separate ways.
Hoo wee! That draft majority opinion is the sort of thing Scalia wanted to do in the Heller case but couldn't. Like all originalist claptrap authors, Alito treats us to the views of pre-U.S. English authorities on the subject. One of those authorities was a 17th Century jurist who sentenced at least two women to death for witchcraft and wrote a treatise containing a vigorous defense of marital rape. That's exactly the sort of fellow we want informing 21st Century American constitutional jurisprudence.
A Washington Post map shows Colorado doesn't share a border with a single state whose laws protect abortion, though Kansas, Nebraska and New Mexico are silent on the subject.
We thus have the opportunity to open a thriving abortion tourism business in places like Trinidad, Grand Junction, Fort Collins, Sterling and Denver.
Anyone interested in investing in Choice R Us?
And it's quite possible all three of Kansas, Nebraska and New Mexico allow it to continue. Having to cast a consequential vote on this is most Republican legislator's worst nightmare.
Trinidad has a history of thriving in the sex tourism trade, back when the town was the sex change capitol of the USA.
New Mexico acted last year
The ACLU & a broad coalition made it work in 2021. If/when the Supreme Court guts Row v. Wade, the coalition will almost certainly reconvene and support a bill with a positive statement about access to abortion rights in the Roundhouse.
I know this is an unpopular opinion, and it means a horrible time for some women. But… abortion is a political decision. It belongs in the legislature, not in the courts. And so now this country, state by state, is going to have to figure out what they truly want. Up to now all we've had is posing with everyone knowing that the court had set the law.
And yes, this will be terribly for many women. Some for short periods, some for longer periods (very conservative states). But this needs to be settled in the political arena.
Completely wrong. Fundamental rights should not depend on the whims of the "political arena," sir.
I respectfully disagree, David. In an earlier time, many argued that slavery was an issue for the states to be settled by “popular sovereignty.”
Ultimately, that issue was settled by Appomattox.
but I am persuaded by Griswold that there is a constitutional right of privacy. Dred Scott was wrong and so is Dred Alito.
I am personally opposed to abortion in most cases. But I support the right of individual women to make their own decisions.
And Trinidad is also the closest Colorado town of reasonable size to Texas and Oklahoma. Julesburg is close to Nebraska but a bit small for a clinic, which is why I suggest Sterling.
Trinidad also has a lot of tourist attractions for women needing a cover story to explain their visit.
Fyi. From dallas to trinidad is a 2 hour, $151 flight on frontier. By car about 9 hours.
I'm with you, V. This has always been a very difficult position for me in my Catholic community. Ultimately this is the decision of the woman (which I staunchly support), and along side that I'll spend my time supporting policies and an environment that support those in need. We (progressives) made a fatal error long ago in letting Karl Rove define the meaning of pro-life. These people are pro-birth.
Unfortunately that position within my community gets me labeled "baby killer" by some, which is fine. For most I could pick any one of the other nine commandments and find they have a log in their own eye. I enjoy the fact they are uncomfortable around me.
I'm not saying it should be left to the states. I'm saying it should be left to the legislature, which includes Congress that can pass a national law.
And yes fundamental rights should be enshrined in the Constitution. But we need to put them there, we can't let the Supreme Court go zip a dee do da and add them on their own.
Finally slavery was not shot down by the courts. It was fought via the executive & legislative branch in the Civil War followed up by passing a constitutional amendment, thereby enshrining it as a fundamental right.
"I'm saying it should be left to the legislature, which includes Congress that can pass a national law."
They are going to do that in January when the Republicans take the House.
Question: Will Majority Leader McConnell – with a two or three-seat majority which includes Collins and Murkowski but which is partially set off by Manchin – use the nuclear option and get rid of the filibuster to codify a right to birth?
David, please cite the enumerated power that you believe gives Congress authority to legislate on abortion.
good luck in that quest.
That's a fair point. So it may be left to the states. But my basic point remains, that the courts should not step in just because their decision is a gigantic good. Issues that are not clearly deliniated in existing law need to be left to the legislature.
The interstate commerce clause.
And they don’t need to keep a straight face when they do it. From their perspective, the end justifies the means. And who is going to stop them: Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett, or Gorsuch?
V – both Congress and the US Supreme Court have, in the past, recognized previously unenumerated rights. The 9th Amendment clearly indicates that such rights exist. Alito's draft suggests that this Court believes that such rights either don't exist, or that we have stagnated to the point where we can never recognize a new (well, 57 years old now) one.
You’re confusing “rights” enumerated or otherwise, which are vested with the people or states, with enumerated powers, PR. Those powers, or lack thereof, limit the power of Congress and the executive.
Congress has no general police power. I question its power to regulate abortion one way or the other.
I believe like the late great justice Douglas that there is a right to privacy in the “penumbra” of the 14th amendment.
The gaggle of ideologues and sex offenders now dominating the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees.
Be careful what you wish for. There are already Rs talking about passing federal legislation to outlaw abortion and preempt state laws creating a state right. Fundamental rights should not depend on the whim of any legislative body.
Also, duh, that's what Colorado just did with the Reproductive Health Equity law.
In a wonderful world, there would be a initiative or amendment process that would allow for a group to get a proposal on a national election ballot and have an agreement that a majority vote would determine the outcome. That's not going to happen, but if it did, there would be sizeable majority in favor of no restrictions for medication or medical abortions in the first three months; much tighter controls with "health of the mother" and "defect of the fetus" exceptions for the second three months; and tight regulation on the 0.8% or so of abortions done in the final three months.
Passing legislation in Congress? With the Senate as it is, there is a huge disparity in the likelihood of what sort of constrained, crabbed "reproductive rights" legislation that could pass with Democratic support and the near total ban that would pass with Republican support. In all likelihood, it would turn into a tetherball game like foreign aid support of organizations that included discussion of abortion (or not, when the Helms Amendment was passed by Republicans). in either case, it would require the end of a legislative filibuster — an outcome I'm still not convinced would be a good idea. And of course, the legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President would STILL be subject to the Supreme Court. Unless there was language in the Act passed that stripped the Court of jurisdiction — another outcome I think would not be a good idea.
After 50 years of argument, the two political parties have coalesced into nearly unanimous positions. So unless Trump really IS able to make the Republican Party, like most things he touches, die, I expect there will be another twenty-five or fifty years of battle, until the Evangelical White Right and their allies finally diminish so they are no longer able to even occasionally maintain a politi9cal majority.
I'd use the tiniest amount of artistic license to suggest that the courts are making partisan political decisions anyway, plus at the federal level judges and justices are chosen via the partisan political game. Of course, there could be purely legislative solutions into the future, though it's not impossible they could be stricken down in the courts.
Oh, absolutely, David. Take “the right to use Viagra” as a case in point. A man’s right to get it up and keep it up should definitely be decided in the halls of his local legislature. There is no right to privacy nor bodily autonomy in the Constitution. And ED meds should absolutely not be covered by any insurance plan which receives public funding. Every sperm is sacred.
If he can’t keep it inside his pants, he shouldn’t be putting it into anyone else’s body. I look forward to seeing your support for bills codifying this into law. The new laws will be justified by sermons from the nation’s pulpits, condemning sexual sin and its logical consequences.
For those of you who take things literally – the above is sarcasm.
I think states can make given drugs illegal. Congress definitely can. And yes, this should be in the purview of the legislature.
On the flip side, the men in the legislature would never pass a bill doing this…
I 100% absolutely disagree!
At no point should a medical decision EVER be a political one. This is a decision between a woman and her doctor and NO ONE else, unless the woman WANTS someone else's opinion.
"(regarding abortion)…..it's not a conservative issue. It's a matter between a woman and her doctor." Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ).
They’re Coming for Griswold, and Obergefell, and Lawrence, and Loving
And this is the danger that we got all those rights from the Court. It can just as easily take them away.
We did not GET those rights from a court. They are inalienable (sit down, John Adams) rights incumbent on living in a free society. It only took court decisions to point that out, and then only because politician tried to trample those rights.
What the court can give (Roe vs. Wade), the court can not only take away, but flip to the inverse. A legislative solution is not at the whim of 5 people.
And best is a constitutional amendment, which is legislative.
The Court long ago decided it could and should review laws. The Legislature is not free of the Court.
If there is no right to privacy implied in the Constitution, then the 3rd, 4th, and 14th amendments aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
As far as codifying Roe ….. aint gonna happen.
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema stands by her support of the Senate filibuster, dooming Democratic plans to codify federal abortion protections (msn.com)
Have you considered changing your nickname to Kyrsten Sinema is a worthless POS?
Collins and Murkowski both support at least a weak version of a Federal law cofifying Roe v Wade. And now that the hammer seems ready to fall maybe they would support a one (or two, if we can get them on voting rights) time carve-out.
How does the Roberts' court claim any sort of integrity after this debacle? Not even considering the nefarious activities of Ginni and Clarence, Chief Justice Roberts has completely lost control of the Supreme Court.
Susan Collins fully expecting ethical and fair behavior from this crew again and taking someone's word for it, and then getting totally rolled. SMH
Just a rhetorical question, I suppose, but is this perjury, and could it be prosecuted?
Sure – they can be impeached. Good luck on that and the removal process.
Since the leak of the document isn't a crime, Ted Cruz is advocating that someone should step up and commit one.
So, the FBI should investigate a non-crime so as to catch someone lying and finding/creating a crime.
Ken Starr, please pick up the white courtesy phone. You have a call.
Agreeing something is " settled law" means nothing when you are auditioning to be one of the Supremes.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-a-supreme-court-ruling-ending-roe-v-wade-would-mean-for-reproductive-rights
Marcia Coyle:
Well, Judy, I think every Supreme Court nominee who goes before the Senate judiciary committee claims that Roe and Casey are settled law. And I think it's time that we all realize that that really is meaningless. Yes, they are settled law, and so are many other Supreme Court decisions. But it does not mean that they can't be overruled.
They are a constitutional based decision which gives the court more liberty in terms of overturning advantage does a statutory decision. So, settled law, to me, really means nothing.