President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(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
June 22, 2024 01:05 AM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

“It is difficult not to write satire.”



12 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread

  1. Incoherent Justice Roberts on Gun Ownership. Ian Milhiser at Vox.

    So judges must ask if a modern-day law is “relevantly similar” to a founding-era gun law, whatever the hell that means. The modern law will probably be constitutional if it addresses a problem that the founders also tried to address, but not if the modern law “does so to an extent beyond what was done at the founding.”

    Bruen, in other words, was a bold experiment in “originalism,” the idea that the only valid way to interpret the Constitution is to ask how it was understood when it was crafted.

    Under an honest application of Bruen’s test, domestic abusers absolutely have a right to own a gun. Certainly, violence between romantic partners existed in the 18th century, but there were hardly any laws targeting this societal problem, and no laws that disarmed domestic abusers. Until 1871, when the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that a husband and wife “may be indicted for assault and battery upon each other,” all 50 states did not make it a crime for married partners to beat their spouses.

    Nevertheless, every justice but Thomas appeared to realize that allowing Rahimi to own a gun would be untenable. Roberts’s majority opinion opens with a startling litany of Rahimi’s history of shooting guns in public when he gets angry. Among other things, Rahimi threatened to shoot two different women. He fired into a man’s home. And he fired his gun in the air at a burger restaurant after the restaurant declined his friend’s credit card.

    In total, Rahimi appears to have committed six different shooting crimes — that is, crimes where he actually discharged his firearm — in addition to the threats to shoot other people.

    Yet, rather than admit that the Bruen framework must be fundamentally flawed if it led a federal appeals court to conclude that this uniquely dangerous criminal has a constitutional right to own a gun, Roberts instead tries to shift the blame, claiming that “some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases.” He then drops two incomprehensible paragraphs seeking to clarify how Bruen is supposed to work.

    When evaluating if a gun law is constitutional, Roberts writes, “a court must ascertain whether the new law is ‘relevantly similar’ to laws that our tradition is understood to permit.” He adds that “if laws at the founding regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that will be a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions for similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations.”


    1. But Rahimi’s test is no less incoherent than Bruen’s, and it does nothing to allay the many complaints from lower court judges that Jackson enumerates in her concurrence. Rahimi simply states in vague terms that more gun laws should be upheld than were upheld in the first two years after Bruen.

      Rahimi, in other words, is a monument to this Court’s arrogance, and its inability to admit its own mistakes. Bruen is an unworkable disaster that has caused mass confusion within the lower courts. It should be overruled in its entirety.

      Instead, all the Court did on Friday is carve out an exception to Bruen for some — and not even all — people who commit domestic violence.

  2. Welp, the paranoid craziacs in the Republican Party are turning on each other in Arizona as well.

    Trump campaign seeks to head off convention revolt from its right flank

    Aides scrambled to foil a plot to throw the nominating process into chaos as suspicions abound about potentially disloyal delegates.

    Among some on the far right, suspicions have intensified that the former president has surrounded himself with too many advisers beholden to the “deep state.”

    “I suspect that they really don’t want us to win … they’re making money on the election integrity stuff,” a Republican said of efforts by activists aligned with some of the most far-fetched conspiracy theories of fraudulent balloting. “They make money when we lose.”

    Pass the popcorn, please!

  3. I just would like to remind republicans that they should leave Colorado…Colorado is no longer an accepting place for insurrectionists, for criminals, and for right wing extremists…GET OUT…LEAVE….any questions should be directed to the republican criminal gang…

      1. Thanks for the peek at what someone is saying at the New York Times. 

        For all the hesitation among some who no doubt are voting in the primary, I don't see Boebert falling behind any other candidate on the ballot.  My rapid read through the article doesn't explicitly stake out a view,

        Anyone outside the McCorkle campaign think there is enough opposition among Republicans and Unaffiliated to deny Boebert's effort to switch districts?


        1. The story is consistent with what I hear /see in Yuma County but Jerry was a popular state senator. Like I said earlier, “Yuma County does not an election make”. I’ll be much more enthused about our chances in the general for that race is she does pull it off Tuesday. 

        2. "I don't see Boebert falling behind any other candidate on the ballot"

          I don't either. The story had one point right. She has multiple opponents. And they will fracture whatever opposition there is to her. (The so-called Doug Lamborn strategy.)

          Her name recognition (even if some of it is embarrassing), Trump's endorsement, the money she has raised, and the fractured opposition means she wins Tuesday with aboiut 40% of the vote.

          We can't get ranked-choice voting fast enough.

  4. My husband and I were at Pridefest this afternoon. I noticed a couple of signs taking up the plight of the Palestinian people in Gaza. One in particular called for a cutoff in US aid to Israel.

    I couldn't help but notice the irony given the way in which the Hamas government in Gaza treats LGBTQ Palestians in comparison to how Israel (even with the ultra-Orthodox theocratic morons propping up Netanyahu) treats its LGBTQ people. 


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

52 readers online now


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