President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 24, 2024 01:32 AM UTC

Memorial Day Weekend 2024 Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols


31 thoughts on “Memorial Day Weekend 2024 Open Thread

  1. A moving reminder of what ought to be going on for the three day weekend:

    The Bulwark: "Remember the Gold Star Families This Memorial Day, honor the families who are reliving the worst moment of their lives."  The essay concludes:

    Death is a part of life in the military. But the rituals and ceremonies surrounding it are special. I’ve attended scores of makeshift ceremonies on small bases at the outer edges of civilization. I’ve knelt before coffins inside C-17s before my brothers-in-arms were flown home.

    As you celebrate Memorial Day, please take a moment to reflect on those who paid the ultimate sacrifice to defend this magnificent country. Remember their comrades, who are also grieving their friends killed in two forgotten wars.

    More importantly, pray for those family members who are reliving their moments with casualty notification officers like me.

  2. Alito Mansplains to Kagan Voting Rights Decision she herself wrote,. Mahablog.

    Read the whole thing. Very good points collected from a couple of different sources.

    Alito says, in short, that courts should pretty much never find that state legislatures acted with racist intent, because they are owed this presumption of good faith that cuts in their favor. And he just makes up the reasons why—he’s just pulling it out of his pocket. Alito says: First, state legislators are bound by an oath to the Constitution, and we should assume they’re following that oath. Second, when we accuse state legislators of doing race-based redistricting, we’re accusing them of “offensive and demeaning conduct” that bears a “resemblance to political apartheid,” and “we should not be quick to hurl such accusations at the political branches.” Finally, he says, we should be wary of voting rights plaintiffs “who seek to transform federal courts into weapons of political warfare” through racial gerrymandering claims.

    Whoever could imagine the state legislature of South Carolina enacting anything racist, right? Or, in other words, Sam Alito must be living on another planet, because he doesn’t seem to get this one.

    This case should have been really easy because the Supreme Court decided a similar one in 2017: Cooper v. Harris, which involved a North Carolina congressional district. The court, which looked very different in 2017, struck down the district. And in her majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan rejected all the garbage that Alito shoveled into the law on Thursday. She wrote that plaintiffs don’t have to present a specific kind of evidence and appeals courts should defer to district courts’ findings, not go over them with a super-skeptical eye.

    Here, rather than acknowledging that he’s overturning Cooper v. Harris, Alito accuses Kagan of misreading her own opinion from just seven years ago. He says she was talking about “an imaginary version” of Cooper v. Harris—which, I cannot stress enough, is a decision that she herself wrote. It is a noxious mix of mansplaining and gaslighting for Alito to overrule this precedent without admitting it, then tell the author of the precedent that she misunderstood the meaning of the opinion that she wrote.

    1. And Thomas had to meet Alito and bet higher. Again, Mahablog.

      And then there’s Clarence Thomas … This is Mark Josephe Stern:

      And yet, as bad as Alito’s opinion was, it didn’t go far enough for Justice Clarence Thomas, who penned a solo concurrence demanding a radical move: The Supreme Court, he argued, should overrule every precedent that limits gerrymandering—including the landmark cases establishing “one person, one vote”—because it has no constitutional power to redraw maps in the first place. And he places much of the blame for the court’s allegedly illegitimate intrusion into redistricting on a surprising culprit: Brown v. Board of Education.

      Brown was, of course, the 1954 decision holding that racial segregation in public education violates the equal protection clause. Many of us celebrated its 70th anniversary just last week. But Brown has always had its detractors, and Thomas has long been one of them. He has written that the decision rested on a “great flaw” by focusing on the stigma that Jim Crow inflicted on schoolchildren. He rejectedBrown’s assertion that Black children suffered constitutional harm when denied access to integrated education. And he condemned the court’s ongoing efforts to remedy decades of segregation by integrating public school systems by judicial decree, decrying these integration efforts as “predicated on black inferiority.”

      Again, what planet does this man live on? It can’t be this one.

      1. I could understand Thomas’ opinion were he too old to have benefitted from Brown, but he isn’t. He was in the third grade when it was handed down. I have little doubt that his primary/secondary education was better because of it. And there was no way he could have gotten into Yale without it. If there’s one thing I despise, it’s a ladder-puller-“I got mine but you’re out of luck”. It also chaps my hide that he succeeded the Justice who argued Brown before the court–Thurgood Marshall.

  3. Lankford is saying he quiet part out loud 

  4. Lankford talks … and then he votes [my emphasis]

    On Thursday, most Senate Democrats again supported the procedural vote to begin debate on the border bill, but it failed to advance 43-50 after all but one Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, voted against it. When the proposal was brought up in February, the test vote failed 49-50 — well shy of the 60 votes needed to advance.

    I’m too sick and tired on this issue to bother going to look up what 2 non-Republicans joined the “all but one” Republicans to sink even TALKING about a border bill.  (but I have some guesses).

    1. Here you go, Michael:

      Via the Missouri Independent: “The non-Republicans who voted against “even talking about the bill” were…Alex Padilla and Laphonza Butler of California, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Cory Booker. Independents Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Kirsten Sinema also voted against.”

  5. At this point, I think it is time to make the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation the focus of an investigation by Congress. I have caught a number of conversations about  the subject, and It is hard to believe the public doesn't have more information about who is making decisions…and why they get to make them. Those players are good at secrecy, but organizations like ProPublica, for example, seem to be prying off the lid.

    Thomas and Alito are culture warriors… Christian soldiers on their March to War. And… completely corrupt. Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Coney-Barrett haven't had time to wade out into the trough as far as their senior colleagues. Give 'em time. 

    The people of the United States face a monumental choice. It is a simple, but an increasingly clear one. The Trump Cult AKA the Orange Horde AKA the 4th Reich desires the power to make Americans live as they are told…not as they wish.

    Vote Blue!! No Matter Who!!


  6. Got a chance to listen to KNUS with guest crybaby George Brauchler who seemed irked that he is the out party in the Republican party. Apparently he is being challenged because… well you know, civil war.

    You got to hand it to them, those face eating leopards are really racking up the faces this year.

    1. I love it! Boy George is running scared of Dagny.

      After he got John Kellner to stand down, he probably figured that he had this in the bag.

      Maybe he should shlep down to Mar-a-Lardo to kiss the ring and hope for a blessing from the Orange Turd.

      1. I don't think he would get welcomed. Even if he gave $19,800. his families full max individual donation to trump campaign. The outgroup bias is that strong in the Republican party right now. You can hear it in Brauchler, in Gape Evans, in Jeff Hurd… they are not in the same party. They are, to the Republican base… driving a hybrid suv to Target: looks right, wrong guts, heading in the wrong direction.

        I dont see it getting "less" before the primary which is right after Pride. Primed with a GOP state party leadership saying "happy summer, get your kids out of public schools they're gay". Republicans are going to get dumped on by fox, and newsmax, and the decepticon networks, a stream of outragious people having outragious fun which will make them outragiously mad. 

        Brauchler would have to go all in on "a plan to end abortion" or "a plan to end progress" in order to get the attention to sway the Republican party and without those things he is superfluous. After all wont trump fix all things?

    1. My read on Trump at the Libertarians …

        * he pandered to the audience with a couple of "promises" (pardoning someone convicted of crimes linked to the dark web site "Silk Road" and the J6 insurrectionists and saying he'd appoint Libertarians to "his cabinet" and "senior advisors." Not enough to push lots of people his way, and I think negative ads will add those specifics on pardons to the overall narrative of Trump being anti-justice.

        * he got frustrated with the boos and the shouted interruptions. He then shifted to taunt the group as a bunch of losers, getting less than 3% of the vote and not wanting to be a part of a winning effort.  Don't get how that will add lots of votes.

      On the whole, I think Libertarians got more out of his appearance than Trump did.

      1. "On the whole, I think Libertarians got more out of his appearance than Trump did"

        Absolutely! He was like a big orange piñata up on stage, allowing the true libertarians to vent at him.

        The true libertarians got to point out that Trump and the Mises Caucus folk are not libertarians at all.

        Here's hoping that Chase Oliver plays Ralph Nader to Donald Trump's Al Gore and Joe Biden's G.W. Bush with Arizona in '24 playing the part of Florida in '20. (Let's just hope it doesn't end up before SCOTUS because that becomes a problem.)

        Trump didn't understand that while he may be a libertine, that doesn't make him a libertarian.


    2. Just like Jill Stein, the perennial Green Party candidate, siphons votes from the Democrats. This year’s gonna be close enough that I wish, just this once, she’d sit it out. One would think that the fringe Parties would get tired of banging their heads against the same wall and being blamed for a loss by a mainstream Dem. or Rep. 

      1. The fringe parties cannot even agree on who their fringe candidates should be.

        Trump secure the Dobbs decision and what did the Right to Life people do? They're running Randall Terry under the Constitutional Party banner.

        Anti-Abortion Candidate To Appear On Presidential Ballot In 12 States | HuffPost Latest News

        You would think that a nice thank-you note to Trump for Dobbs and their endorsement of him for appointing Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett would be enough. But no, the purists on the right will not be happy until Gilead has been established.

        And on the left, Jill Stein is not running opposed. She has Cornel West siphoning off hard leftie votes.

        This has nothing whatsoever to do with these people advocating for any principled positions. This is about narcissistic egotism, pure and simple.

        They may not be able to accomplish anything but by God they will make their presence felt.

  7. Bannon perp walks this week, I hope. He's lost his appeal on contempt of Congress, so should have to report to jail soon. He has stiffed his lawyers, as well as gullible donors who supported Bannon's "Build the Wall" grift.

    His former boss and role model is also facing contempt and election fraud charges with possible jail tme. With  Giuliani also facing accountability music, it should be a good week for the rule of law.





    1. Did I miss something?  Bannon lost in a circuit court, but still had the chance to appeal for an en banc hearing (arguing to the entire set of Circuit Court judges) or to the Supreme Court.  He has a couple of weeks to make a move, and then there will be consideration of the appeal/request. 

      I don't see anything unique in Bannon's circumstances that would argue for a different outcome than Peter Navarro got … but there still are opportunities for delay.


        I'll be satisfied if Bannon gets the same treatment that Peter Navarro got. Navarro is just finishing up his four months in prison now. (1/24-5/24) It's nowhere near sufficient for Bannon's crimes, but it's a start. 

        The more delay Bannon gets,  the more likely that he'll be locked up right before the election and thus, cause less damage.

        1. Bannon's contempt sentence is 4 months, too. Timing is increasingly limited: 

          Bannon attorney David I. Schoen previously said that he would seek a rehearing before the full D.C. Circuit after a three-judge panel of the appeals court affirmed Bannon’s conviction at trial by a D.C. jury in July 2022. Bannon has 45 days to seek an en banc review, and the panel said it would not return the case to Nichols until seven days after that review was requested.

          May 10 plus 45 days to make a request for a rehearing, then some amount of time for that request to be handled, then a hail mary appeal to the Supreme Court (which already denied the appeal of Peter Navarro).


          Meanwhile, Bannon's NY state "We Build the Wall" trial was initially set to begin tomorrow in front of Judge Merchan. It has been delayed, but is now on the calendar for September 23, 2024 — still assigned to Judge Merchan.

  8. So, this is the week on which we may see Judgment Day. Or perhaps not.

    As I see it, there are four possible outcomes:

    Outcome A:  Trump walks. This is extremely unlikely given the venire pool. Even under the best case scenario for Trump, at least one juror will hold out to convict. (And probably many more.)

    Outcome B:  Trump is convicted. This is possible (and much more likely than Outcome A) but it is still not probable. This will require a number of things to fall into place:  12 jurors unanimously voting to convict Trump on the felony. (Question:  Does anyone know if the judge is going to give a lesser included offense option for a misdemeanor?) The theory is a bit of stretch involving jerry-rigging what is ordinarily a misdemeanor into a felony. There are two lawyers on the jury who may, or may not, have issues with this. And let's face it:  this case on the facts pales in comparison to the three other cases against him. A guilty verdict on the felony is possible but not probable.

    Outcome C:  Mistrial, most likely caused by a deadlocked jury. (There are other possibilities: Trump may call in sick on Tuesday and stay sick for a lengthy period of time. Someone else may call in sick.) Remember, it only takes one closeted MAGA juror to hold out for acquittal. A mistrial is probably the most likely outcome.

    Outcome D:  Something truly unknown at this point in time and probably unforeseeable occurs. Remember, we are dealing with Trump.

    In the event of Outcome A, expect the MAGA-verse to chime in with a resounding and profanity-laced version of, "We Told You So." He was innocent and a victim of a hoax perpetrated by the Deep State and Librul Media.

    In the event of Outcome B, expect the MAGA-verse to erupt with rage and violence by pointing out that a corrupt prosecutor, a corrupt judge, and corrupt jurors are seeking to deprive the world of their leader by undemocratic means. YADDA YADDA YADDA

    In the event of Outcome C, expect the MAGA-folk to claim that Trump was exonerated by the fact that he was not convicted.



  9. Closing arguments Tuesday.  Jury instructions on Wednesday morning and it will be interesting to see the outcome of the earlier arguments to the judge. 

    Washington Examiner pointed to likely "wins" for each side on the instructions:

    • "For example, Merchan dealt a blow to Trump’s team before the court adjourned, saying that if prosecutors proved the former president had an “intent to defraud” when he falsified business records, then there was no “separate requirement of intent” for the undefined other crime that the jury would need to consider."
    • "Conversely, Merchan did seem poised to rule against Bragg’s team in a way that could damage their case on the question of whether to tell the jury that Trump can be convicted if the panel finds that falsified business records were “reasonably foreseeable” based on his actions.  “I don’t like the reasonably foreseeable language,” Merchan said."

    Instructions aren't final until they are actually given to the jury.

    Pressure for a verdict from the judge AND among members of the jury often are used to explain why hung juries are rare.  As complex a case as this is, a quick verdict doesn't seem likely.  I'm expecting to be waiting for awhile.

  10. "Armed and gay"

    That's the way Chase Oliver accepted the Libertarian Party nomination for president.

    Libertarians pick Chase Oliver as presidential nominee – POLITICO

    Apparently, the Mises Caucus attempted to block his nomination on the final round of voting by voting "None of the Above." But Oliver still won 60% to 36%.

    Correct me if I am wrong but aren't members of the Mises Caucus the same folks with whom Dave "Let's Go Brandon" Williams negotiated his infamous non-aggression pact to keep Barbara Kirkmeyer off the ballot in CD-8?


    1. Turns out the Libertarian Party doesn’t like being puppeted. I really have to hand it to them looking at how they were cooped and adressed principles. They Indiana Jones’d up and nocked the Nazis on their kesters. I doubt it wins them much in the way of votes but I respect that they stood up and took their party back. 

      This is exactly the reverse of what happened in the Republican party in Colorado. They ran crazy right wing with Hiedi after she lost and they thought the problem was candidates that lost were not crazy right wing enough! 

      All be for not though if trunp is elected. States right only mean states and rights they agree with. Watch for an extradition of Kelly Maher under advisement of Congressmans Williams and Boebert.

      1. "States right only mean states and rights they agree with"

        Yes indeed. Which is basically just the Second Amendment and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment (a/k/a we can shove our supersititious mythology down everyone else's throats). Oh, and the free speech clause of thr First Amendment provided that corporations are people and money = speech. The more the money, the louder the speech.


  11. Orange Jesus  Cadet Bone Spurs had some thoughts today. Maybe we could pass a law that prevents drafts dodgers and their spawn from making statements of any kind on Memorial Day? Maybe include all descendants of Bavarian draft dodgers? (Looking at you, Fred)


  12. … "to serve America."

    and I immediately connect to the famous story from sci fi writer Damon Knight and the Twilight Zone episode based on it, as characters promised "to serve man"

    Trumps as the Kanamits. 


Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

65 readers online now


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