U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Michael Bennet
50%
50%
50%
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
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%
June 27, 2023 08:04 AM UTC
22 Comments
The Supreme Court decides to not kill off our democracy just yet. The SCOTUS Quackjob wing’s desire for a theocratic dictatorship will have to wait for another day.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.
The AP's explanation is a bit less cryptic:
However, the article continues:
The North Carolina example is telling:
"Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch would have dismissed the case because of the intervening North Carolina court action"
That's because they wanted to leave the question open so that in 2025, if Trump is re-elected and gets to appoint Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis to the Supreme Court, there will be a majority to adopt the harebrain scheme.
Philip Bump agrees with me: Democracy survives another day
Here is the root issue in question:
Mornin’…
Would someone please change Grampy’s diaper?
What a woosie. To his cult followers you made this bed now enjoy wallowing in it.
It's like Ttump (“See as president I could have declassified it. Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”) just can't help but openly confessing his myriad personal crimes?
I can't say he enjoys being a criminal, but he obviously enjoys folks knowing he's committed crimes and then tremendously enjoys their worshipfully allowing him to get away with crimes that no one else could. I guess that's his way of always feeling special?
Trump enjoys believing that his name "trumps" the law. It's hubris, plain and simple.
"Clinton Socks Case……"
I thought Socks was the name of Chelsea Clinton's cat. The Orange Caligula becomes more unhinged by the week.
You aren't paying enough attention to the nuances of the nutso.
Clinton "Socks" refers to the tapes of interviews by Taylor Branch — a journalist / historian and friend — of Bill Clinton, part of the material for an eventual book The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President (2009).
"Judicial Watch, a conservative group, asked the court in 2010 to declare the tapes presidential records under the Presidential Records Act."
Judge Amy Jackson ruled The Presidential Records Act "does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President,"
https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/jun/12/why-the-bill-clinton-sock-drawer-case-is-not-compa/
Hmmm. Had not heard of this. Bill Clinton's administration then was old news.
Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch then, and now, is a far right wing idiot trying to wrap himself up in "non-partisan clothes."
The field running for Denver Mayor was actually scant compared to Toronto. 102 candidates (or, according to this BBC story 101 people and a dog) ran in this year's race, though a human candidate named Olivia Chow (not the dog breed) won with about 37% of the vote.
Here's one solution to determine whether a business owner turned politician is a greedy CEO as alleged by a union leader ….
Senator Markwayne Mullin Wants To Fight Committee Witness | HuffPost Latest News
I really find it amusing when a Bible-thumping, trailer trash senator takes on the leader of the labor union which consist primarily of Magadonians.
Jennifer Rubin urges readers to Follow the money: No Labels can’t hide its right-wing ties — Gift link/No $$
So how is it that the man who made his fortune scamming Medicare (a fund made possible by democratic socialists) gets to claim the moral high ground at the Florida state line? I don’t remember his disdain when actual Nazis made an appearance at Disney World.
Does Florida have private firefighting companies that charge per incident like proper capitalist organizations or are they funded by communities like socialist organizations that the rest of the country enjoys?
In other SCOTUS face-palm news, it’s a sunny good day for would-be life threatening stalkers in Colorado.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/06/27/supreme-court-sides-with-stalker-in-first-amendment-case/?sh=74194ad16534
One should read the article. It was a 7-2 decision with all three 'liberal' justices among the seven.
And, Plessy was 7-1 . . .
It's a serious First Amendment issue, Washoping, and the case is being sent back to the Colorado Court of Appeals for further proceedings. It might have to be remanded for a new trial, applying the new standard adopted by SCOTUS. But the case isn't over, nor is Mr. Counterman out of the woods yet.
The ALCU post about this is a good read (https://www.aclu.org/cases/counterman-v-colorado#summary).
When reading about Supreme Court rulings, I find it important to consider other contexts about the issue instead of just the case that caused the issue to be brought to the court.
It would be really nice if people just said what they meant without the hyperbole. Then we could consider vague threats to be "true threats", but until then it makes sense to reverse this ruling.
I feel certain that Counterman was charged with other things (harassment, restraining order violations, etc.) so I don't think this ruling says that Counterman did nothing wrong. It just says that a stricter test of "true threats" needs to be used.
But SCOTUS also refused the take the Ohio State University case where the victims of Dr. Strauss' sexual assaults in the 1970's may get their day in court. Can't wait for the deposition of Gym Jordan to be taken.