President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
60%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 02, 2007 08:22 PM UTC
35 Comments
Loading ...
But if you look at the last few AG’s…specifically, back to the late 70’s…they all went to fairly prestigious schools for their undergrad or law studies if not both. Don’t get me wrong, Michigan (where KS went)has a hell of a law school, but it’s not Yale, Harvard, Boalt (Cal), Stanford, or Columbia…
I’m just sayin…
He’s a politician. The court is three or four pay grades above the Senate. No way.
at least he didn’t go to Liberty University like 90% of the bush adminstration
I’m not trying to be funny. I’m just wondering…..
…that the answer is “No.”
I could be wrong.
Regent university accreditted? Its a fourth tier school, but it is accreditted.
I have heard of Regent University which has a law school. And I think it is a accredited.
Heard about it via Monica Goodling. She is a graduate of that school.
From Wikipedia (the internet is your friend…):
Liberty was founded in 1971 and received Southern Association of Colleges and Schools accreditation in 1980.[4] In 2006, Liberty successfully completed re-accreditation, and remains currently accredited by SACS and TRACS.[5] The law school, which opened in 2003, gained provisional accreditation from the American Bar Association in 2006, which enables its graduates to sit for any bar examination in the United States.[5]
Almost voted for that one. I don’t know-it seems like people have a crush on Salazar-just look at the list that was floated. I think in five years the hype around him is going to have died down considerably. I just don’t see him having the stuff to go V.P. or Supreme Court or anything like that.
I used to think that he was VP material—I mean he sure has the family story and the positions, the ethnicity and the regional things all going for him.
He is just not dynamic in his speaking style. He’s not someone who can “fire up the troops” if you will. And given that the VP nominee is usually expected to be the attack dog of the ticket, I’m not sure he’d comfortable (or good) in that role.
I do, however think he would be a fine AG or even Supreme Court nominee. He’d breeze through the confirmation process as he is apparently pretty well respected on both sides of the aisle.
But I don’t think he’ll be going anywhere in just the next 5 years. Think he’ll run for Senate again (and win again) first.
I really hope Salazar does not get nominated to be AG or on the SCOTUS. His positions on civil liberties are not moderate–they’re actually more in line with, say, Rehnquist. I want people in those positions who understand that the Bill of Rights exists to protect citizens from their government. Salazar, as a former AG, never met an unconstitutional search or a death penalty he didn’t like.
His knowledge of issues covered at Interior, however, is impressive. Public lands and water lawyers who knew him before he was a Senator praise his understanding of these issues, which are of critical importance in the West.
Interior’s the place for Ken.
She isn’t picking Liberal Light. The base wouldn’t like that. She’ll be picking another Ginsburg.
I’d love another Ginsburg…hell, I’ll even take a “conservative” that turns into John-Paul Stevens. 😛
But, assuming Dems dont find themselves with a 60 vote majority come the next time the Senate needs to confirm a justice, Repubs may actually have the balls (or ovaries) to block a true liberal President Clinton (I mean…whoever the Dem prez is :P) nominates. Dems were too soft to do it with Alito and Roberts, but Repubs may be a different story.
If I recall correctly the senate confirmed Ginsburg by more votes than Roberts or Allito. Plus, Schumer said recently that Dems shouldn’t confirm another SCOTUS nominee of Bush’s should there be one
Ginsburg was confirmed 96 to 3, but Dems also controlled the Senate at the time. And that was also the “Bob Dole republican minority,” not this Frist now McConnell group of repubs.
As for Schumer, I’ve never trusted him further than I could throw him. Sure, it would be nice to just not confirm another Bush appointee…until repubs start whining about Dems holding up an entire branch of government by leaving the Court short-handed. Unfortunately, chances are the public would buy it. Lets just hope the court stays intact until Jan of 09…
…..if those pesky 47 or 46 Republicans dare to try to stop an up-or-down vote on President Rodham Clinton’s appointment of Lanni Guinier (who makes Ruth Ginsburg look like a DINO) to the Supreme Court.
The nuclear option…..remember that?
Yes, please. I don’t think we did anything as awful as all that to deserve Alito so hopefully, karma will equal out and give us somebody decent in the next go round.
He would be my pick —- he’s a good man and an excellent judge
Is my prayerful choice for either Attorney General or Supreme Court .
Ken Salazar is the guy who voted to confirm Albert (Abu) Gonzales (because he had such a great “personal story.”)
He voted to confirm John (Unitary Executive) Roberts.
He voted for the McCain torture bill.
He voted for the amendment to ban flag burning.
In agreement with CJ above, Salazar’s most disturbing feature to me is his willingness to put Constitutional protection of civil liberties at lower priority than government authority—not the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court interpreting the law.
My overall assessment is that Ken Salazar very carefully aligns himself with majority Colorado opinion. He votes Dem on safe issues—e.g., no drilling in ANWR, against CAFTA. He is strongest and most consistent in advocating for domestic social issues such as immigration reform, abortion rights, also as a supporter of Veterans’ benefits. However, he takes periodic excursions to pander to Repubs as listed above. I have never seen him take a stand based on his convictions that put him on the wrong side of the majority. I wouldn’t call him a moderate, because a moderate takes a self-consistent viewpoint that rejects extreme positions from both ends of the spectrum. Instead, it seems to me that Mr. Salazar’s strongest allegiance is to the advancement of Mr. Salazar.
It is interesting to think that a generation ago, Ken Salazar probably would have been comfortable as a Rockefeller Republican. His alignment with the Dems shows how far right the Repubs have gone, and how the center of public opinion is now closer to mainstream Dem positions.
… he’s on the record against gay adoption.
on that issue has evolved and he is now supportive of gay adoption.
Is vascillating on an important social issue called “evolving” and a sign or maturity; or is it called wetting the finger to check the direction of the wind?
I agree with the other Polsters concerning Salazar’s civil rights records and as being consistent with the Tenth Circuit’s overall handling of civil rights cases.
if you vascilate, you go back and forth. Salazar has evolved on this issue…he has moved from the more restrictive position to the more open position.
I stand by my characterization. He has, indeed, evolved.
Much like Obama and Kucinich have “evolved” on the issue of reproductive choice. Kucinich used to be anti-choice and Obama, while he was in the Illinois Senate voted “present” on most issues related to reproductive rights.
that if Salazar dosen’t toe the party line 100 % his beliefs are somehow “pandering to Republicans” ? It’s not easy to defy your own party; it would actually be easier to vote with Dems all the time and be done with it. Here’s an idea – maybe the Democratic party dosen’t exactly represent every single belief he has about how things should be !
as to require 100% agreement with my views.
But as I said, I have specific objections for KS in SCOTUS based on his positions on civil liberties issues.
My assessment of him is based on my effort to realistically evaluate his performance since becoming Senator. I stand by my comment that I think he puts his personal political advantage ahead of larger principles.
Having said that, I don’t regret voting for him over that empty suit Coors and I’m glad that in the majority of cases we are on the same side–beats the alternative with Allard. But I have no illusions about what I’m getting.
Civil liberties in our country have seriously taken it in the balls the past few years so I see your misgivings with him re: SCOTUS.
That being said, I like Salazar and the fact that he has been so high profile for a freshman senator, which is of course good for Colorado. This is in stark contrast to whomever our other senator is – I forget his name right now.
as he is only a first term Senator–he has to get past re-election to have a shot at lasting impact, and he has elevated his profile in a short time. Unfortunately, these trying times make it hard to do business-as-usual politics.
I think Ken Salazar is to the right of a typical Rockefeller Repub.
Does anyone know what happened to EPRR?
Yes, Ken voted to allow THIS Attorney General to unilaterally decide when it is OK to secretly eavesdrop on the phone calls and e-mails of American Citizens, provided he can later say that he had a “reasonable basis” to suspect that the call/e-mail concerned a target outside the U.S.
No FISA court review. No probable cause required.
Watch what you write.
Watch what you say.
Justice Ken Salazar? I think not.
No one who willingly voted to suspend habeas corpus rights belongs on ANY court or in ANY legally-related seat.
It’s a good bet that Ken Salazar has never read the U.S. Constitution. If he has, he probably views the Bill of Rights as a set of general guidelines to be negotiated away in a legal/political deal. Salazar would be bad news as a Supreme, and I’m not overly impressed with his senatorial abilities, either.