CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


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

(D) Joe Neguse*


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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




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 12, 2016 06:36 AM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

“Regrets are idle; yet history is one long regret.”

–Charles Dudley Warner


32 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread

  1. The mountain is rumbling and today may be the day it erupts. The Trump/Ryan confab could be earth-shattering…pass the popcorn and turn off the cellphone…

  2. Here we go again. If you don't feel comfortable following the law and the Colorado Constitution, get another job.

    Today six Colorado sheriffs filed a federal lawsuit that seeks to reverse marijuana legalization in their state, which they say should be overturned because it makes them uncomfortable. Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith and his counterparts in five other counties say Amendment 64, the marijuana legalization measure that is now part of Colorado’s constitution, has made their jobs harder by creating a conflict between state and federal law.

    Colorado Sheriffs Say Marijuana Legalization Should Be Overturned Because It Makes Them Uncomfortable – Truth Voice

    1. This from people who whine about having to be politically correct because the just kidding slurs they forward make silly people uncomfortable and those people should just suck it up. Poor little uncomfortable Sheriffs. Boohoo.

    2. If they have some problems enforcing the state law, perhaps they should seek advice from a lawyer – specifically, the folks up at the US Department of Justice who say they're not going to pursue non-violent possession offenses or operations that are legal under state guidelines.

      The job of the sheriffs is to enforce state and local laws while ensuring that they don't violate Federal laws. If they see Federal crimes, those are generally left to the FBI or other Federal agency to pursue if I'm not mistaken.


    3.  Justice O'Connor, in a dissenting opinion, summed it up best in (2005) Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1

      We enforce the “outer limits” of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority not for their own sake, but to protect historic spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment and thereby to maintain the distribution of power fundamental to our federalist system of government. United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 557 (1995); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 37 (1937). One of federalism’s chief virtues, of course, is that it promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that “a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).[10]

      O'Connor concluded:

      Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case.

      Today's SCOTUS would likely reflect the dissenting opinions of this case.  John Q. Public overwhelmingly sees the folly of Prohibition; its days are numbered.

      Even an Attorney General Christie would be unable to put this genie back in the bottle. 

      For the record, industrial hemp-derived products are also considered 'marijuana' within the CSA.  Does this hemp-derived oil the that heals children offend you as well? There are literally thousands of acres of this plant, its cultivation also prohibited by the Controlled Substances Act, that will be growing this year in Colorado. Are they conflicted when they drive by these fields?  

      Surely my Yuma County Sheriff has better things to do with his time. 

    4. It seems reasonable to me, James.  And in that same vein, there is a federal reserve bank in Denver with a couple billion dollars that makes me uncomfortable.  If the sheriffs would join us, we could all feel more comfortable by liberating that money and investing it in sex, drugs….err, make that booze, and Rock and roll.   Comfort Trumps the law!  Are you in?  A $100 million for each of the six sheriffs should leave a billion each for us.smiley

  3. In the spirit of a brother on the #NeverTrump bandwagon (for two entirely different reasons) I've signed Moddy up for a Canadian experience.  I can't imagine there is anyone in an enlightened Canada as clueless as our little troll – but there is an old saying, "there's a lid for every cracked pot". 

    Make dating great again.

    Maple Match makes it easy for Americans to find the ideal Canadian partner to save them from the unfathomable horror of a Trump presidency.


    1. Sounds like a great service, Michael…Do you have to know how to play ice hockey?smiley Now that I am a single man again, I just might have to look into that. I am not yet convinced that Donald Trump will not be our next president. Justified or not, there are too many people whose choice will be weighted heavily by the perception of a candidates’ dalliance with and membership in the "establishment".

        1. Hillaries' numbers do not look good against the Donald. Can she change those in sufficient numbers to beat him in the fall..? I think so, but could so easily be wrong. I believe, though I know her knights will soon be here to gore my ox, that Hillary will lose to Donald Trump if they are the nominees.

          On the other hand, has there ever been a presidential contest in which both candidates are charged with felonies just before the election?

          1. Numbers this far out are meaningless. Wait until September, when Democratic attacks on Trump have sunk in, to see what the polls are. Then look at the poll averages over time state-by-state.

            As for felony charges, I think the landscape is littered throughout our past with candidates that should have been charged.


          2. A  word of caution. Polls showed Dukakis ahead in he general at this point. General election numbers at this juncture are highly unpredictive.

            There are still two Dems running and a chunk of Sanders supporters who are not yet ready to say they'll vote for HRC will do so in the general after all.

            Both Trump and HRC are in the low to mid 40s which leaves lots of wiggle room. The Dems are believed to be holding 80% of the dirt their oppo people have dug up in reserve for the general just as Bernie benefits from Rs holding off on attacking him until such a time as he becomes the nominee, rendering his better than HRC's polling numbers at his juncture unreliable. I know that dirt just seems to help Trump with the people he's already got and those who supported other nut bags no longer running in this primary stage but they aren't enough to win a general.  

            Talking heads need something to talk about, to get people all hyped up about and I've noticed that an entire string of polls showing Trump beating HRC by small amounts in important states like Ohio and PA have been Quinnipiac polls. Q has been unreliable and heavily skewed to the right for many years now. Most recently they had Romney beating Obama pretty much right up until the bitter end.

            None of this is to say it's going to be a cakewalk but the fact is HRC has the edge. There just aren't enough angry white bigots to make up for the fact that Trump's numbers among Latinos make even Romney's look good, not to mention women, African Americans and younger voters. Neither are there enough Bernie or Busters to hand it to Trump.

            This is to say, however, that any argument that we need a contested convention to dump HRC for Sanders as the stronger opponent to Trump based on present polls is both highly suspect and extremely premature.


          3. well, we'll find out , Duke.   Trump is the nominee and Hillary has a lock.  You might to ask if your 75-year old Socialist is so electable, why did Hillary beat him like a toy drum on most occasions when they actually faced each other in a primary, rather than a caucus in some lily white state like Utah or Idaho?  When he did beat her, like West Virginia, it was usually with the help of Reagan Democrats who vote Republican anyway.

      1. I checked the "Other" box under "who would you like to shack up with?"  He's the hottest Belle of the Ball amongst members of the Canadian Sheep Federation.  

  4. Judge Collyer in the US District Court for the District of Columbia has found in favor of the House of Representatives vs. the Adminstration in their Affordable Care Act lawsuit (see link for full opinion).  An excerpt:

    This case involves two sections of the Affordable Care Act: 1401 and 1402. Section 1401 provides tax credits to make insurance premiums more affordable, while Section 1402 reduces deductibles, co-pays, and other means of “cost sharing” by insurers. Section 1401 was funded by adding it to a preexisting list of permanently-appropriated tax credits and refunds. Section 1402 was not added to that list. The question is whether Section 1402 can nonetheless be funded through the same, permanent appropriation. It cannot.

    What this actually means is unclear.  The Court stayed its injunction pending appeal; I assume the Administration will in fact appeal (the Court's decision to grant standing in the first place was controversial).  The decision was handed down the day *after* the deadline for filing insurance plan premiums and deductables; this means those plans were filed assuming a different set of rules than may be ultimately in place.  It is widely thought that this opinion, if upheld on appeal, will significantly damage the Health Care Exchange market.

    1. This is King v. Burwell Take 3, pretty much. Congress has the power to clarify what the ACA general fund can be used for if they think the President is wrong – just pass a new law. Otherwise, the ACA clearly expresses that these payments be part of the plan, and the Executive is carrying out Congress' wishes.

      Oh – and the House on its own shouldn't have the power to bring the case. At the very least, this should be a joint lawsuit.

    2. So this will go to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals – you know, the one where some guy named Merrick Garland is the chief judge – which will eventually reverse the District Court judge.

      At that point, the US House will take it to the Supreme Court which, on a 4 to 4 split, will affirm the Court of Appeals because tie votes result in the lower court decision being automatically affirmed.

      It may even affirm on a 5 to 3 vote if John Roberts is feeling particularly adventurous and wants to poke the Tea Party in the eye for a third time.

  5. GOP PUMA update for 5/12/16…..

    On the same day that Herr Drumpf and D.J. Paul Ryan held their inconclusive summit meeting to bury the hatchet, Drumpf got some good news. He received the coveted endorsement of former Republican Vice President J. Danfoth Quayle.

    So for those of you keeping score on endorsements of Drumpf from living, former GOP presidential and VEEP candidates:  it's now 4 (Dole, Quayle, Cheney, and Palin) and 5 (two Bushes, McCain, Romney and Ryan).

    1. Senator McCain endorses "The Nominee."  Which I guess puts him sorta in the middle of those 4 who DO endorse and the 4 who won't or can't yet endorse.

      In a ringing endorsement McCain said "he believes Donald Trump “could be a capable leader” and reiterated his stance that he will “support the nominee” of the Republican Party."


      1. First, while running for president, he offered the American people the utterly ridiculous, feather headed Palin as our potential President and leader of the free world should anything happen to him. Now this. You’d expect so much better from someone who has been through what he has been through and endured what for most of us remains unimaginable hardship with such courage and integrity. It’s very sad to see what a pathetic shadow of the hero he once was he’s become.

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

67 readers online now


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