The (Colorado Springs) Gazette, Feb. 26, on supporting the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch:
Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet has battled loyalty concerns for years. Critics blasted him for voting with President Barack Obama “99 percent of the time,” without much regard for whether those decisions best suited Colorado.
Fair or not, the charges affected the senator’s approval ratings. In November, Bennet defeated a county commissioner with low statewide name recognition, and almost no money, by less than 4 points.
The looming confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, a Boulder resident, presents the loyalty test of Bennet’s career.
Democrats may filibuster the confirmation, claiming Republicans stole the Supreme Court seat by refusing to consider Obama’s lame-duck nomination of Merrick Garland. To do this, given their numbers in the Senate, they may need Bennet’s cooperation.
If Bennet wants to show more unwavering loyalty to the Democratic Party, he will do as requested by minority leadership. If he wants to do right by Colorado, he will make Gorsuch the only Coloradan on the Supreme Court since Byron “Whizzer” White, who retired in 1993 and remains the only Coloradan to serve on the court.
To vote against Gorsuch, Bennet would favor his party over someone who clearly ranks among the top-qualified nominees in the court’s history:
-Graduated with honors from Columbia University and Harvard Law School.
-Earned a doctorate in legal philosophy from Oxford University, giving him an education level matched by no other living Supreme Court justice.
-Wrote seven appellate opinions affirmed by the Supreme Court, four unanimously.
-Widely acclaimed by a broad, bipartisan spectrum of the legal community.
“We hold a diverse set of political views as Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Many of us have been critical of actions taken by President Trump. Nonetheless, we all agree that Judge Gorsuch is exceptionally well-qualified to join the Supreme Court,” wrote 96 prominent Colorado lawyers and judges in a letter to Bennet. “We know Judge Gorsuch to be a person of utmost character. He is fair, decent, and honest, both as a judge and a person. His record shows that he believes strongly in the independence of the judiciary.”
Among those who signed is liberal Democrat and former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Michael Bender. Jack Finlaw and Trey Rodgers were legal counsel for Democratic Govs. Bill Ritter and John Hickenlooper. Rebecca Love Kourlis is a former Democratic appointee to the state Supreme Court. Jim Lyons ranks among former Democratic President Bill Clinton’s most loyal friends.
Despite the opportunity to help confirm a profoundly qualified Coloradan, Bennet remains undecided.
“Michael is focused on learning more about the nominee’s judicial philosophy through his opinions and his hearing,” said Bennet’s spokeswoman, Laurie Cipriano. “We are confident that Judge Gorsuch will receive the fair consideration that Judge Garland was denied.”
This has nothing to do with Garland, who was the nominee of a president with less than a year to serve. Barring extraordinary circumstances, President Donald Trump will put a man or woman on the court. If it is not Gorsuch, it will likely be someone less qualified and more threatening to Democrats. Chances that person will come from Colorado are next to none.
Bennet’s wait-and-see announcement should be worrisome. He took the same approach to Obama’s nuclear weapons deal with the rogue terror-sponsoring state of Iran, then voted for it in direct conflict with the wishes of most Coloradans.
We hope Bennet votes in the best interest of Colorado, the court and the country, without regard for party pressure to act in bitterness and revenge. Gorsuch should be an easy decision for Colorado’s senior senator.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2lZyplI
___
The Durango Herald, Feb. 24, on marijuana in Colorado under Trump:
White House spokesman Sean Spicer’s assertion that there would be “greater enforcement” of federal law when it comes to recreational marijuana programs has stirred uncertainty and angst in a state that sold and taxed $1.3 billion worth of pot in 2016.
But before industry leaders start plotting a secession movement, let’s all take a deep breath.
President Donald Trump has never indicated shutting down recreational or medical marijuana programs in states was on his priority list. In fact, the president said while in Colorado in August that he wouldn’t take such action in Colorado: “I think it’s up to the states, yeah. I’m a states person. I think it should be up to the states, absolutely.”
So what gives?
We hope Spicer was referring to “greater enforcement” within the guidelines of the fairly permissive Cole Memo adhered to by federal authorities under President Barack Obama. Federal agents could increase their activity in Colorado to help prevent the distribution of marijuana to minors, shut down gangs and cartels operating outside state regulation, and stop the transportation of the drug across state lines. More enforcement in those areas would keep marijuana out of the black market and in reputable stores where only adults can purchase it and only after they pay a hefty tax.
We hope Spicer did not mean that U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions would issue a new memo treading on weed: one that directs federal agents to raid recreational marijuana businesses in Colorado, Washington, D.C., and the six other states where voters have approved legal pot sales. We hope such a memo wouldn’t also inadvertently interfere with the medical marijuana programs in 28 states, Puerto Rico, Guam and the District of Columbia.
An abrupt change from the status quo would do far more harm than good. The U.S. Department of Justice’s enforcement guidelines, as laid out in the Cole Memo, created a vacuum of federal marijuana enforcement that allowed Colorado’s well-regulated industry to thrive. That industry fostered 18,000 direct and related full-time jobs in Colorado in 2015.
Enough American states have now said yes to medical marijuana to almost reach the point of symbolic ratification. The same day Spicer made his concerning comments, Quinnipiac released a poll that indicated 59 percent of adults support legalization of marijuana use, 93 percent support medical marijuana and 71 percent would oppose a federal crackdown on legal marijuana operations.
Against such a backdrop, and given his party’s control of Congress, there’s one easy way Trump could act in this area without the chaos a reversal of Obama’s policies would create: Change federal marijuana law. Colorado’s congressional delegation, Republicans and Democrats, need to unite and advocate for businesses in their state that are undoubtedly on edge following Spicer’s remarks. This moment of uncertainty could be a rallying cry for congressional action, for a hard look at whether it really makes sense to classify marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug - a category so serious it includes LSD and heroin.
Short of that, Trump should live up to his campaign promise and leave the matter to the states, and to the conscience of the millions of Americans who have supported the cannabis experiment.
Editorial: https://dpo.st/2lQQ12z
___
The Durango Herald, Feb. 27, on needless bills:
Legislators in Colorado are debating a couple of pieces of legislation which ought to be jettisoned. Why? Because they either address an eventuality which has a limited history of occurring, or will have unintended consequences.
In an unnecessary attempt to show support for the energy extraction industry in the state, an industry which can be in conflict with surface owners and close-by municipalities and does trigger raw feelings, one bill would elevate from a misdemeanor to a felony the charge for doing damage to energy production facilities. The scenario suggested is that anti-drilling demonstrators, at a well site, would be less inclined to tamper with well head equipment if they knew that a felony conviction might result.
That is likely true, but according to news reports, there has been only one case of a misdemeanor conviction for such damage in recent years.
A felony packs a lifelong wallop, as well, too much so for many actions during a demonstration. Employment, lodging, bank borrowing and civic participation is either ended or becomes much more difficult with a felony.
The equipment at energy extraction sites can be dangerous, and it is not to be damaged to make a point, but with no significant history of those results we say let a misdemeanor stand as punishment.
No need in this case to make the arm of the law unnecessarily heavier.
So, too, do we see no need for the creation of a good Samaritan provision to shield individuals who break into a vehicle believing that an infant or a dog or cat may be in danger of overheating, perhaps fatally.
To its credit, the bill would require that the intervener first call 911 and make a reasonable attempt to locate the vehicle’s driver before likely breaking a window or window frame, but the answer is continued education not legal protection. In many cases, 911 responders can be on the scene very quickly. In clear cases of distress take all the action necessary, but what is not needed are a flurry of cases of broken glass and escalating shouting matches because of a disagreement over whether a window open a few inches is adequate. Stand by and call 911 and give responders and the driver a chance to appear before becoming physical.
Colorado needs additional funding for its highways, and for its schools. It also will very likely need some thoughtful ideas as to how to reduce the very expensive Medicaid spending whether or not the federal government ends the Affordable Care Act. Those are the issues we would like to see the Legislature spending time on.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2mpXcjf
___
The Greeley Tribune, Feb. 15, on tiny homes as solution to housing shortage:
An Eagle County housing assessment last year estimated that we’re in a right-now shortage of around 4,500 units.
Whether or not that’s true - and there’s reason for skepticism - the fact is that the Vail Valley’s housing shortage for most of the past 55 years is about as bad now as it’s ever been. That means just about any and all efforts should be welcome in the effort to find places to live for families, seasonal employees and everyone in between.
That said, some healthy skepticism should accompany ideas to bring a number of so-called tiny homes to Minturn and Gypsum.
If you haven’t heard of tiny homes, then they’re small (as the name implies), usually no bigger than 600 square feet. They’re also portable. Many can be towed with a pickup truck. They are, in fact, cuter, better-insulated campers.
Tiny homes are also trendy as the latest video game. TV shows are dedicated to the joys of tiny home life.
Tiny homes are cute, no doubt. But they ask a lot of their inhabitants.
The biggest requirement is that occupants need is a firm commitment to cutting down on possessions. Most of us have stuff, from clothes to dogs to skis and bicycles. Some of us have too much stuff - or an extra pet or two. A 500-square-foot home won’t hold much stuff. How many of us are really willing to do the kind of down-sizing tiny-home living requires? Two people and two labs in a tiny home in January sounds like the very definition of close quarters.”
Then there’s the fact that tiny homes still require space. Sure, you can wheel in 25 or 30 tiny homes in short order, but the fact is that the same space would also comfortably hold double or triple that number of apartments or condos.
Again, virtually any method of quickly delivering more housing to the valley is worth a hard look. But tiny homes sound like a temporary, partial solution to a much bigger problem. Even if they are adorable.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2mHzWcW
Please read our comment policy before commenting.