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) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

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) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 25, 2014 05:53 AM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • 61 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

"Betrayal is the only truth that sticks."

–Arthur Miller

Tweet
Share

Comments

61 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread”

  1. Dem steps into race against Tipton.  All opposing candidates appear better qualified than incumbent, according to the GJ Fishwrapper: 

    Abel Tapia, a former Democratic state legislator from Pueblo and just-retired director of the Colorado Lottery, will line up to oppose incumbent U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton, a Republican from Cortez.

    The article itself ddisplays more of the level of reportage we have come to expect from Gary "PP" Harmon: 

    Tapia said he was urged to run after Pueblo County Commissioner Liane “Buffie” McFadyen dropped her short-lived candidacy last week, leaving Democrats without a strong candidate, though a man living in the Colorado Mental Health Institute has filed papers to run for the job as a Democrat.

    As noted, all opposing candidates look to be a better choice than current Boehner-rubberstamp Tea Party Talking Point spewing bump-on-a-log, whatshisname.  

    And perhaps the reporter has a future in public office afterall.  

    1. Abel Tapia will be a good candidate for CD3. At the County Assembly, he said that his challenges would be a) money, and b) getting out the vote. He had specific strategies for the latter, which I won't share here. He has strong support in Pueblo, where he has owned a small engineering firm for many years.

      As far as money goes, when he ran for the Colorado Senate district 3, he raised $50K, per TRACER. His committee is still in the "exploratory" stages, and he hasn't set up a campaign fund or website yet, as far as I can find.

       

      1. Abel will find a fired up Mesa Democratic Party ready to help him. Scott Tipton is a liability to the people of western Colorado (well , except for well-heeled, O&G corporations and the like). It is time for him to go, so that CD3 can have some actual representation in Congress.

      4. "The guy in the looney bin"–yes, he would fit right in but unfortunately the guy is a Democrat—not a part of the GOP looney bin. 

        Abel Tapia is a great pick–I had an occasion to work with him during the funding mess that Colorado found its self in with the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad down in Antonito a few years ago. 

  2. A corporation, generally formed to provide two basic functions 1) individual, personal legal  liabiltiy shields, and 2) a lower tax rate, will be arguing before the Supreme Court that its religous liberties are under assault if they are forced to offer their employees contraception as part of their health insurance offerings.

    This, a corporation, that would have no financial viability at all if its stores we're full of product 'Made in China',   a country with  one-child, forced abortion policies.   Yet, they refuse to carry products that promote Jewish holidays.  You know, that religion that gave us the ultimate Jew, Jesus..  The man who commanded us to "love thy neighbor", "feed the hungry", "clothe the naked"  and all of those other pesky suggestions.  The man they profess as their savior. The ultimate liberal.

    You just couldn't make this up.

    1. I'm half-certain the owners are of the firm opinion that you can't know the Bible unless you've read it in the original King James English and that Jesus was a white guy.

      On a related note, Walmart, whose owners advocate for smaller government, noted in their SEC 10-K filing that their business may suffer if government assistance programs are cut.

      1. Of course they would suffer. This is, after all, a company that supplies the forms and holds classes to teach their employees how to apply for social assistance, lest they be forced to pay a living wage. 

    2. Michael, a corporation is generally formed because as a seperate legal entity it has the ability to efficiently aggegate assets seperate and appart from the individuals who form it and/or later contribute capital to it.  The fact that if properly operated it shields the individuals from personal liablility and depending on circumstances and how you calculate things it may have lower tax rates, in my experience is a seconday consideration.  

      LLP's are not corporation and can shield a partner from liability.  Corporations can elect to be treated as partnerships for tax purposes.  But if you want individuals to be able to transfer interests and attract capital a corporate structure is preferable.

      I do not feel a need to impose my view on what holidays others should celebrate. I celebrate Christian and Jewish holidays, as my wife and daughter are Jewish.  I also do not feel a need to tell people what insurance they are required to provide, if any, to their employees.  I don't think it is anyone else's business.

      BTW, the case I find more interesting which is being argued today is in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.  Here is a link.

      http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2014_03/will_dc_circuit_strike_down_ob049610.php

       

      1. Yes, AC, and your first point supports mine:  it doesn't expose your personal assets to corporate liabilty that might arise from the operations of your business.  And I fully understand their is a plethora of legal instruments, beyond the age-old corporation, that provide similar legal protections.  And, many of them allow the profits to flow through to the members (in the case of  "S" Corps, LLC, LLLP's, etc.) eliminating double taxation, as is the case with "C" corps

        I think your second paragraph misses the entire point of my post. On second thought, your entire response seems to have missed the irony of the situation.

          1. The three judge panel does not include any Obama appointees.  If they decided that the Administration does not have the authority to do the administrative rewrite of the law, then the question is does the decision get stayed?

            The language of the law is clear one way, the congressional intent is clear the other way, and one does not normally care about the intent if the law is clear, similar to contract interpretation.

            2. You mean the three judge panel from this pool of judges?

              "Close observers of the D.C. Circuit say the addition of Millett, plus Georgetown University law professor Nina Pillard and U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Wilkins — who personally won a landmark settlement against the Maryland State Police for racial profiling — will over time counter the rising influence of two arch-conservatives appointed by President George W. Bush."

            3. You're right – JudgePaul Friedman isn't an Obama appointee, he was seated during the Clinton administration when Democrats controllled both houses of Congress.  I wouldn't expect anything terribly disruptive from his decision.

            4. The panel contains one Carter appointee, one GHW Bush appointee, and a GW Bush appointee.

              It does appear that the two conservatives on the panel were skeptical of the government's claims today, and it's possible that the panel could rule against the government.

              However, in that event the government would almost certainly request an en banc review of the case (i.e. a rehearing by the entire Federal District Court of Appeals), and given Obama's latest appointments, this would be a more friendly venue. During that time any decision would almost certainly be stayed.

              A district judge in a different circuit dismissed a similar case for lack of standing, and that is certainly one possibile outcome if this case reaches the Supreme Court. SCOTUS doesn't like to get involved if it doesn't have to, and dismissing the case based on lack of standing (or as a political question) would not be unusual.

              1. Federal Judges, once appointed, sometimes show an independent streak and are not all that predictable.  If the panel goes with the appellants, will the decision be stayed pending the request for the review en banc?  It is not a sure thing.

                If the panel rules for the Appellants and there is an en banc review some of the recent appointees may not want to come off as political hacks paying back their masters. At least that was the thought when they made federal judges lifetime appointments.

      2. That case might be more interesting as a means to attacking Obamacare, but it's unlikely to succeed. The argument has been thrown out by both Republican and Democratic appointed judges on at least two different lines of reasoning – that in the absence of clear guidance, the Executive branch has regulatory authority, and that the Congressional record indicates clearly that Congressional intent was to allow subsidies for all qualifying exchange plans.

        1. PR,  The write up of the oral argument was interesting and it appears that 2 of the 3 judges do not buy the government line.  The decision should be interesting.

      3. Nearly every statement you make about entities is wrong.

        Generally, a domestic corporation cannot elect to be taxed as a partnership.

        Almost all business entities are formed to take advantage of the liability shield, and almost all entity formations are done with an eye on the tax consequences thereof (at least if the owners are well-advised).

        LLCs are greatly favored over corporations a the entity of choice because of their greater flexibility of captial structure and pass-through taxation. The only notable exception is a corporation that is formed with the imminent intent of going public.

        1. OTD,  Trying to sell an interest in an LLC is a pain.  I am a member of one and in the process of switching it to a C corp.  When the entity starts to get complicated, real money, >20 shareholders it gets unwieldy.  It is easier to control things in a C corp, at least that is my hope.

          2. An LLC is a legal, not a tax entity.  An LLC can elect to be taxed as a sole proprietorship, a partnership (if more than one owner), a C corporation or an S Corp. 

            You seem to know as much about business as you do politics.

    3. "liability" shields.  How about a general agreement amongst all of us?  Until Soros coughs up the dough and gives us a new, improved platform with an edit button – any typo that isn't so egregious that it's not recognizable for its intended meaning won't be required to perform a mulligan?  

      1. I'd be happy enough with a "preview" button.  The different context when a comment is presented "as-if" it were posted seems to trigger recognition of such things better than looking at the comment in the editor.  Plus it can preview HTML tweaks.

    4. Get a hobby! Get religion. That's what I'd do if I were a corporation.

      I throw it out there: Where does it say in the Bible, Thou shalt not use birth control pills or condoms?

    5. This is the best review of the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga case I have read.

      Among the assertions:

      1.  The plaintiffs in these cases are seeking a type of religious exemption that has virtually no precedent in the history of free exercise and RFRA adjudication.

       

      a religious exemption would require customers, employees, or competitors to bear a heavy cost in the service of another’s religion, something the Court has understandably been loath to sanction.

       

       in Lee, the Court unanimously held, not that commercial enterprises could not raise religious exemption claims, but that such claims would almost certainly be turned aside:  “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity,” at least where “[g]ranting an exemption . . . to an employer operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.”

      2.  There is no “contraception mandate.”

      ​

       Federal Law Does Not, However, Require the Plaintiffs to Offer an Employee Health-Care Plan

       

      OK, one might then ask, but if an employee health insurance plan must include contraception coverage, doesn’t the HHS Rule thereby de facto obligate all largeemployers to make such contraception coverage available to their employees, since such large employers are required by law to offer, and to partially subsidize, an employee plan?  Isn’t that what the Affordable Care Act “employer mandate” is all about? 

       

      No.  Contrary to common wisdom, federal law does not impose a legal duty on large employers to offer their employees access to a health insurance plan, or to subsidize such a plan.  There is no such “employer mandate.”

       

      What the ACA does, instead, is to impose a tax on large employers (just as with Social Security), ensuring that they share in the national burden of the new public entitlement—but with an option allowing such employers to avoid the tax if they offer a health insurance plan to their employees. 

      1. Live blog recap of the arguments

        They heard the "there is no employer mandate" argument.  The alternative to paying for insurance is paying a tax.  Since that's the argument that won the day for the whole ACA being found constiutional, it would be consistent with recent SCOTUS jurisprudence, and would be the kind of cop-out the Roberts court loves so much.  He (CJR) did seem more likely to spilt the baby and let closely held corporations actions reflect their corporate owners' beliefs.

  3. @MB

    1) I think that Gardner's statement on personhood was in anticipation of the media coverage that the hearings before SCOTUS will generate.

    2) If Hobby Lobby prevails, the entire civil rights legal framework based on public accommodation laws and the 14th amendment could unravel.

     

  5. Oh Joy! The Reid Report is live on MSNBC, weekdays at 2 pm.  I've always found her very sharp, with an original and refreshing point of view.

    Here's a sample, on what a Rand Paul presidency might be like"

     

    1. Agree. Joy is terrific. It's not that she's light weight, not at all.  But she has a charming sense of humor to go with her smarts and education and doesn't pound you over the head with things, drawing you four diagrams when one would do the way Rachel sometimes does.  I never feel like shouting at the TV "OK. I get it already!" like I sometimes do with Rachel.

  6.  

     

    From the NYTIMES: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/us/politics/conraceptive-coverage-challenge-supreme-court.html?hp&target=comments#commentsContainer

    "Hobby Lobby told the justices that it had no problem offering coverage for many forms of contraception, including condoms, diaphragms, sponges, several kinds of birth control pills and sterilization surgery. But drugs and devices that may prevent embryos from implanting in the womb are another matter, the company said; its owners believe those would make the companycomplicit in a form of abortion."

    So the arguments presented today hinged on the interval of time between fertilization and implantation.  

    The Little Sisters of the Poor have a different argument based on their religious belief that any kind of birth control is immoral; that every act of intercourse should be free to allow for the transmission of life. 

     

    1. Re: Little Sisters of the Poor…How else are so many poor people brought into this world, after all? I wouldn't especially call their position enlightened self-interest. But it's their position and they're sticking to it.

      1. No problem for them. They don't have sex. They don't want to.  Guess they think it should easy for a couple who don't want more children to stop having sex or, alternately, to find some way to support ten children.  Screw the Little Sisters.

      2. @Canines

        It is not "their" position.  It is catholic doctrine that is centuries old.  The sisters also take vows of poverty, chasity and obedience. And the greatest of these is obedience.  I cite this only because it is substantially different from the cases that the courts heard today.

    2. I guess if you pick out the people that are blonde and blue eyed from any large organization you can find a group of people that are blonde and blue eyed.  The Dem meme that people that disagree with them are bigots and that is the reason they do not go for the community organizer in chief lives on.

      I am comfortable with the thought that there are many good, non-racially motivated types who find many good, non-racially motivated reasons to object to the Obama way.

    1. Hmm.. this is the part I liked….

      Rep. Mike Coffman's re-election campaign said Tuesday that the congressman no longer supports granting a fertilized egg the same legal rights as a person. Coffman's Democratic challenger had demanded he reject the proposals, which were overwhelmingly rejected at the ballot box by Colorado voters in 2008 and 2010.

      Not evolved? Just giving in to his opponent's demands in recognition that this ain't your grandpa's CD6?

      1. The way it's phrased, it does give the impression that Coffman's merely giving in to that big birth control bully, Andrew Romanoff.  

        There is nothing about abortion or contraception on Coffman's FB page, and his coffmanforcongress.com has no issue statements at all.

        National Right to Life rated him 100% as of January 2014.  Same page, NARAL rated him 0%.

        So he's been planning this move for awhile, too – he had time enough to clean up his websites. It's all anti-Obamacare all the time, now – with a few Veteran's bills thrown in.

        As with Gardner, Coffman's decision, IMHO,  is all about the money.
        Right to Life contributed only 9,000 in 2011-2012, vs. Koch-funded Freedomworks $164,000. In 2013-2014, Right to Life wasn't one of the top 10 contributors to Coffman's 2 million campaign fund

        Right to Life just wasn't contributing the kind of cash needed to buy Coffman's advocacy.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

58 readers online now

Newsletter

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