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
July 01, 2024 12:48 AM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

“Knowing trees, I understand the meaning of patience. Knowing grass, I can appreciate persistence.”

–Hal Borland


23 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread

  1. #OnThisDay

    …in 1870, Congress created the Department of Justice to handle the flood of post-Civil War litigation. President Ulysses S. Grant appointed Amos T. Akerman, whose priority became the protection of Black voting rights from attacks by the Ku Klux Klan and similar groups.

    Congress aided that fight by passing additional laws that gave the department powerful tools to fight these violent white supremacist groups. These new laws enabled Akerman to obtain hundreds of convictions across the South. On one day in November 1871, 250 men in a South Carolina county confessed membership in the Klan.

    Historian William McFeely wrote of Akerman, "Perhaps no attorney general since his tenure … has been more vigorous in the prosecution of cases designed to protect the lives and rights of Black Americans."

    But instead of rewarding Akerman, Grant dismissed him, and the battle to preserve these voting rights became less of a priority.

  2. Some, but not absolute, immunity.

    (1) Supreme Court Says Trump Is Partly Shielded From Prosecution: Live Updates – The New York Times (

    So, Judge Chutkan will hold a hearing this summer on the scope of immunity and Trump's activities, he will then appeal any adverse ruling, and sometime this autumn or winter, the Supreme Court will likely decline to hear the appeal until after trial.

    And in January 2025, Attorney General Paxton will dismiss the case making this all much ado about nothing.

  3. Hi all – for the last year I have been creating an application to manage volunteer events for Democratic Partities & Candidates. It's now live!!!

    If you want to check it out (you do, you do), the website is here and the app is here.

    And if you're handling volunteer management for a county party or candidate, please contact Joe Zemek to get added. Or if you're outside of Colorado, contact me.

    thanks – dave

  4. It is a full-on disaster.  Official acts are absolutely immune.  And the Court takes a very broad view of what is an Official Act.  Worse, the court appears to create a presumption that acts are official acts, so the burden is to show that the acts were private not official acts.  This is a gift to trump, and allows him to truly weaponize the DOJ for his own personal benefit.  This is an absolute catastrophe.  The Court needs to be fundamentally altered, adding at least 9 justices and instituting term limits, as well as eliminating certain jurisdiction for the Court.  

  5. I’m surprised SCOTUS didn’t also refer to Trump as “His Royal HIghness”

    In dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote that “the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark.”

    “The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding,” she wrote, adding: “The president of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution.”

    She gave examples: “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

    Here’s one of the sleeper holdings in the court’s ruling: The decision finds not only that a president can’t be charged for any official acts, but also that evidence involving official acts can’t be introduced to bolster accusations made about unofficial acts. If I’m reading this right, Chief Justice Roberts has reversed himself from his position during oral arguments.

    1. No Harry, "Highness" is the address for a prince. Yammie-pie wants desperately to be a king, and will insist upon being addressed as "Majesty".


    2. Poor Nixon was forced out of office for stuff he could have claimed were "official acts" necessary to save the nation.


  6. How much longer will this court be allowed to be blatantly politcal with impunity? This court could not be MORE corrupt. With this latest decision, all pretense at impartiality is gone forever. 

    This is politics…not jurisprudence.

      1. On the other hand, Harry, it occurs to me that those  "official acts" could be acts by President Biden. He will still be president for 5 more months. 

        1. Trump made his Faustian bargain long ago. Joe is far too decent to be lured into that trap. This is just one more of many sad days for this country. The destruction this man-child has wrought upon the country, communities, family relationships. Democracy. Decency. There's a lot on the line Nov 8. I hear we'll be offering free neutering and spaying services for the cult at voting centers across America on Electiom Day. 

        2. What is the Magna Carta for $100?

          If Biden ordered a staff person to "remove" Trump, that would be an official act and therefore legal. Biden apparently couldn't "remove" Trump personally, as that would be an unofficial act.

        3. Actually, Duke, I've been pretty excited today about the possibilities this ruling presents to the Biden Administration. NO ONE in the media seems to have caught on – but I have to believe that White House attorneys and staffers are exploring ALL the ways this ruling could assist the Biden Administration in achieving its goals, AND help the country as a whole. I hope better legal minds than mine will weigh in here with some of the tantalizing policy possibilities. Also, a small correction: Biden has 4 1/2 years left . . . 

    1. How much longer?

      At least for the freseeable future. Even if the Dems took the House – which has become a much bigger lift after last Thursday night's TV spectacle – they would be able to impeach Thomas and Alito. (And maybe the other four while they're at it.) But Thomas and Alito are the most egregious of this group.

      Jamie Raskin and Jerry Nadler would parade over to the Senate next winter with their articles of impeachment in hand, and Majority Leader Rick Scott would simply move to dismiss (like Schumer did for the Mayorkas impeachment), the clerk would call the roll, and on a 51 to 50 (with Vice President Vance casting the tie-breaking vote), the motion would pass and the impeachment trial ended as soon as it began.

      So, how much longer will this SCOTUS standa as it is? At least for the next four years, and probably a lot longer than that.

      Remember, Thomas and Alito are old. Next year, both will retire and Trump will get to select their successors from the list Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society sends him. (And they will be 40-ish. Or maybe younger.)


    2. How much longer? As a friend said to me last night, if we lose this fall we will not see a liberal Supreme Court again in our lifetimes. 

      1. I think that is true. You could say that with the appointments of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, a ship left which will not return in any of our lifetimes.

      2. Recognizing the 3 of the oldest 4 Justices (75, 74, 69, and 69 years old) are part of the conservative block, and in recent history "The current average age a justice leaves the court is about 81 years," there is a distinct chance of change in the next decade. 

        With the Extreme Court burning its reputation to provide incense for corporations, anti-federalists, and Trump, the chance of fundamental structural shifts increases.  Proposals to shift the nomination process so every Presidential term will have a minimum of two seats to fill, to mandate Justices roll off the Supreme Court on a regular basis, and expanding the Court to have one Justice for each Circuit (currently, that would be 13) are all possibilities.

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

50 readers online now


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