http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23380042/battle-ahead-colorado-democrat-john-morse-fights-gun


The organizers of an effort to recall Colorado Senate President John Morse turned in Monday more than twice the number of signatures required to force a special election, possibly setting the stage for an expensive, national battle over gun control.

If the signatures are determined to be valid and survive a court challenge, it's likely voters in Morse's Senate district will decide at special election in September whether to oust the Colorado Springs Democrat.

Morse's support of gun-control legislation in the 2013 session as well as his leadership style sparked the recall effort.

["General election" means the annual election to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November and, where applicable, includes annual school elections held on that date.]

19:1-1. As used in this Title:

"Election" means the procedure whereby the electors of this State or any political subdivision thereof elect persons to fill public office or pass on public questions.

"General election" means the annual election to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November and, where applicable, includes annual school elections held on that date.

19:2-1.  Primary elections for delegates and alternates to national conventions of political parties and for the general election shall be held in each year on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in June between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M., Standard Time.  Primary elections for special elections shall be held not earlier than 30 nor later than 20 days prior to the special elections.

19:2-3.  The general election shall be held on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November in each year.  Special elections shall be held on the days hereinafter provided for the purpose in this title or in any other statute relative thereto.

19:3-26.  If a vacancy shall happen in the representation of this State in the United States senate, it shall be filled at the general election next succeeding the happening thereof, unless such vacancy shall happen within 70 days next preceding such election, in which case it shall be filled by election at the second succeeding general election, unless the governor of this State shall deem it advisable to call a special election therefor, which he is authorized hereby to do.

The governor of this State may make a temporary appointment of a senator of the United States from this State whenever a vacancy shall occur by reason of any cause other than the expiration of the term; and such appointee shall serve as such senator until a special election or general election shall have been held pursuant to law and the Board of State Canvassers can deliver to his successor a certificate of election.


Seems fairly clear to me.  The special election to fill Lautenberg's is currently scheduled for 5 November 2013 with the primary election to be held sometime between 6 October and 16 October  (8 October or 15 October if a Tuesday is chosen, 12 October if a Saturday is chosen).

Assuming the 70 days was chosen to allow full time for people to file for the primary, then in theory Christie could move forward the day of the Senate special election to as early as 13 August if he felt it advisable.  The only reason I could see him thinking it advisable would be if he decided to not appoint anyone as a placeholder but leave it vacant until the special election.

I see nothing in the law that would cause the election to be delayed until 2014. While this November is not the next general election that would normally see the election of a US Senator, it is the next general election.

Link


19:27-6. Congressional vacancies.
  If the vacancy happens in the representation of this State in the United States Senate the election shall take place at the general election next succeeding the happening thereof, unless the vacancy shall happen within 70 days next preceding the primary election prior to the general election, in which case it shall be filled by election at the second succeeding election, unless the Governor shall deem it advisable to call a special election therefor, which he is authorized hereby to do.

Kindly post the number of circuit judges confirmed in George W. Bush and Bill Clinton's 2nd terms.

I merely support consistency. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. I leave amnesia to you.

For the record, this is what Democrats did with George W. Bush's nominations to the DC circuit. Suddenly they are impatient now, haha.

Roberts’s nomination took 729 days to confirmation. Janice Rogers Brown’s took 684 days and encountered two cloture defeats. Thomas Griffith’s took 400 days. And Brett Kavanaugh’s took 1,036 days, including an unsuccessful filibuster effort.

You're picking individual nominations to make your point when the average wait time for confirmations has been far worse for President Obama than his predecessors. Clinton was somewhat more successful in his second term as opposed to Bush, with 36 confirmations to Bush's 30. However, we can only compare Obama's first term compared to theirs. And, if anything, that shows that Clinton was able to get more moderate nominees through a hostile Senate. Some nominees will take longer on account of ideology. If Bush was unable to get his nominees confirmed in a Democratic Senate, that is his fault for not nominating more reasonable individuals. With the exception of Roberts, the other three you mentioned were some of the most contentious confirmation votes during the Bush Administration.

And I don't believe Democrats ever proposed eliminating three seats on the DC Circuit Court as a way to prevent more judges getting on that court. I'd also like to note that Bush had four judges confirmed to that court, three of which still remain (with Roberts on SCOTUS).

You haven't answered my question from before. I would hope you would answer, as I've answered for you.

I don't see any reason to change the filibuster process.

The Democrats eliminated the 12th seat on the DC circuit in 2007, and moved it to the 9th circuit. In what is an interesting quirk, they only made the seat available on 1/20/2009. Guess who they didn't want making nominations to the seat?

A more accurate description of what happened from 2005-2009 is that Senate Democrats decided that those nominations would not be filled, and therefore they weren't filled. It's quite curious to blame ideology when Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy was singlehandedly blocking nominations in order to ensure they would be filled by the next President. Senate Republicans from 1997-2001 were simply more charitable.

For the record, your counts are inaccurate. The total number of circuit judges confirmed in George W. Bush's 2nd term was 16 in the 109th congress, and 10 in the 110th congress once Leahy went to work. The current Congress has already completed 6. One of those 10, Helene White, was of course Carl Levin's relative (the one you don't care about) and a product of 7 years of holds, blue slips, and filibusters. The rest of course lapsed without, as you put it, a fair up or down vote which they will never receive.

None of this is, of course, new. The country has had contentious confirmations since John Adams.

"At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill, it's about compromise and moderation. The nuclear option extinguishes the power of independents and moderates in the Senate. That's it, they're done. Moderates are important if you need to get to 60 votes to satisfy cloture; they are much less so if you only need 50 votes. Let's set the historical record straight. Never has the Senate provided for a certainty that 51 votes could put someone on the bench or pass legislation."

"If he really believes that reapportionment is a questionable decision … then clearly, clearly, you'll find a lot of people, including me, willing to do whatever they can to keep him off the court,"

"That would include a filibuster, if need be."


Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE)

You don't care about facts and want to change the rules after using them for your own political gains. That has been well established for some time.

Why would I support dishonest people who don't walk the walk but just bleat nonsense? The left won the argument in 2003-2005 and got to filibuster like champs.

Can you please show me any evidence where I have ever supported the filibuster? I do not support the filibuster for any presidential nominee, let alone actual legislation. I'd prefer the filibuster be eliminated in its entirety. It would certainly increase the accountability of the federal government. This has nothing to do with my political goals. That's not to mention that Republicans controlled the Senate from 2003-2007. All of Bush's judicial nominations should have received a simple up-or-down vote, just as I believe Obama's nominees should. Bush did get 37 circuit judges confirmed in his first term, compared with Clinton and Obama's 30 each. When it comes to a hostile Senate, a President must compromise. That means Robert Bork would be doomed in a Democratic Senate just as Goodwin Liu would fail in a Republican Senate. If a nominee can get a majority vote in the Senate, then he or she should be confirmed.

I don't know what your position on the filibuster is, but I must ask whether or not you would have supported Bill Frist's motion to wipe out the filibuster on judicial nominations. Would you have supported that, yes or no?

Kindly post the number of circuit judges confirmed in George W. Bush and Bill Clinton's 2nd terms.

I merely support consistency. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. I leave amnesia to you.


For the record, this is what Democrats did with George W. Bush's nominations to the DC circuit. Suddenly they are impatient now, haha.



Roberts’s nomination took 729 days to confirmation. Janice Rogers Brown’s took 684 days and encountered two cloture defeats. Thomas Griffith’s took 400 days. And Brett Kavanaugh’s took 1,036 days, including an unsuccessful filibuster effort.



And those are the 4 that were confirmed. Miguel Estrada withdrew after being harassed by Ted Kennedy and Peter Keisler was blocked by Leahy for 2.5 years upon which Obama let his nomination lapse in order to put his own guy there.

Carl Levin blocked every nomination to the 6th circuit for 7 years because George W. Bush refused to nominate his cousin's wife. Eventually in 2008 Bush gave her one of the two open slots, upon which Leahy promptly leapfrogged her over existing nominees in the confirmation process.

Grassley obviously learned from such tactics and wants to get his own guy there.

I really don't care what Carl Levin did or what Chuck Grassley wants to do. As objectionable as I find the filibuster itself, holds are even worse. That kind of petty politics from the right is destructive to functional government and needs to stop. And that kind of mindset is exactly why the nuclear option should be exercised. All of Bush's judicial nominees should have received an up-or-down vote, just as all of Obama's nominees should. For some reason, I doubt you would be so supportive of these tactics if it were a Republican President with 55 Republican Senators.

You don't care about facts and want to change the rules after using them for your own political gains. That has been well established for some time.


Why would I support dishonest people who don't walk the walk but just bleat nonsense? The left won the argument in 2003-2005 and got to filibuster like champs.

One of those judgeships has been vacant for 8 years because Senate Democrats refused to confirm John Roberts' replacement.

Payback is a bitch.

Govern unto others as you would have them govern unto you.

You people didn't. This President and Vice President voted to filibuster Sam Alito.

What do you mean "you people?" I'm a 24 year-old Democrat from Texas...my connection to anything is as legitimate as a North Korean defecting to their cab driver.

You people in this case refers to the 2 mentioned. I might add that the current Secretary of State came up with the idea after his defeat in 2004, and that the prior Secretary of State also supported the idea.

One of those judgeships has been vacant for 8 years because Senate Democrats refused to confirm John Roberts' replacement.

Payback is a bitch.

That's a terrible way to run the United States Government. However, I'm one of the few on the left that thought Frist should have gone through with the nuclear option. An up-or-down vote should be afforded to every presidential nomination. I object to the notion that 41 Senators should have the ability to block any nominee for any position. If a majority of the Senate votes yes, the nominee should be confirmed (and vice versa). For the most part, that would mean that if the Presidency and the Senate are controlled by the same party, the vast majority of nominations would succeed. If they were opposite, the President would have to compromise on his nominations, as is already the case.

Besides, when Republicans controlled the Senate, it's not like Democrats exactly got a good deal to avoid the nuclear option. Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and Priscilla Owen were all confirmed. Only two nominations were blocked by that deal, and the not the most extreme of them in my view (which would be Brown). As for whatever happened after Democrats took back the Senate, it doesn't matter. A simple majority vote would defeat those deemed unacceptable. A President must compromise on nominations (especially judicial) if the Senate is controlled by the opposing party. If Bush were to present Brown or Owen to a Democratic Senate, he should expect defeat, just as Obama should if he presented Goodwin Liu or Pam Karlan before a Republican Senate. The vast majority of Obama's judicial nominations have been confirmed without opposition. There's no excuse for the excessive delays they have been receiving. If you need to look at the vote margins, look here. My only concession is that Obama should be nominating judges at a faster pace, which he might actually do soon.

Carl Levin blocked every nomination to the 6th circuit for 7 years because George W. Bush refused to nominate his cousin's wife. Eventually in 2008 Bush gave her one of the two open slots, upon which Leahy promptly leapfrogged her over existing nominees in the confirmation process.

Grassley obviously learned from such tactics and wants to get his own guy there.

One of those judgeships has been vacant for 8 years because Senate Democrats refused to confirm John Roberts' replacement.

Payback is a bitch.

Govern unto others as you would have them govern unto you.

You people didn't. This President and Vice President voted to filibuster Sam Alito.

[One]

One of those judgeships has been vacant for 8 years because Senate Democrats refused to confirm John Roberts' replacement.

Payback is a bitch.

And water is wet.  If you know anything about the Judiciary you know that at no time in your life was there NOT a judgeship vacant.  Finding ONE unfilled judgeship and claiming that gives you carte blanche to do whatever you want is absurd.

Vacancies on the circuit courts when Clinton left office: 25
When Bush left office: 12
Today: 15

That's court packing.

'nuff said.

Of course, this did not happen only once. Leahy, Kennedy and Biden stalled a vacant 4th circuit seat from 2000 through 2009. Roberts himself was stalled for 12 years. Now the left simply does not want to answer for their behavior.

Those types can self-deport to California and take their problems with them.

And therein lies the problem of Federalism. That is no way to run a railroad. We are one nation, and states generating externalities and distortions, and handing out bribes to keep industries and so forth in a race to the bottom in more ways than one, creates economic distortions, and wastes money, by the rail car full.

Incidentally, externalities, distortions, and bribes are commonplace in the Washington DC morass, as unscrupulous individuals dispatch lobbyists to leech money. It is no coincidence that Washington DC borders many of the wealthiest counties in the United States as they serve as breeding grounds for parasites.

Those types can self-deport to California and take their problems with them.

One of those judgeships has been vacant for 8 years because Senate Democrats refused to confirm John Roberts' replacement.

Payback is a bitch.

Didn't he have a bastard child?

Amazon now offers the standard batch of household items as add-on products. You can get those shipped to your door rather than wait 20 minutes in walmart's absurd lines.

Link


America's Families First (AFF) is established and operating as a 501(c)(4) organization to promote social welfare and further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community. It is not organized for profit. AFF is working to educate the public on issues critical to America's families. Specifically, AFF will work on progressive issues at the local, state and federal levels of government


Link


Why we need to maintain a Democratic Majority in the US House:








How nice of the IRS to give these people 501c4 status without much trouble.

Things like this reinforce my belief that political organizations shouldn't be tax-exempt to begin with. There's too much damn money going around and it's basically a cash-cow for the political consultants who run and work for those groups. You can buy some voter lists, shower them with direct mail and email about some heartwrenching issue in the God-Guns-Gays triumvirate (or whatever War on _______ is going on), and wait for the gravy train to commence. Send 10% of the money you raise to political campaigns, keep the other 90% for yourself for "overhead expenses" and you're operating completely within the letter of the law. And no taxes!

I think if groups like that want to keep their tax exempt status, they need to abide by at least two rules: (1) They cannot so much as mention the word "Democrat" or "Republican" in their literature or ads or websites. (2) They must abide by a "blackout period" of 30 days leading up to a general election where they can air no commercials, send no mail and engage in no fundraising activity.

That's an interesting theory. In the real world, the current President's political campaign is operating under tax free status led by Jim Messina. But they don't have the word 'Patriot' in their name.

Link


America's Families First (AFF) is established and operating as a 501(c)(4) organization to promote social welfare and further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community. It is not organized for profit. AFF is working to educate the public on issues critical to America's families. Specifically, AFF will work on progressive issues at the local, state and federal levels of government


Link


Why we need to maintain a Democratic Majority in the US House:








How nice of the IRS to give these people 501c4 status without much trouble.

All the Democrats complaining here are being huge hypocrites. I'd rather have a huge GOP house majority with more Nonpartisan redistricting in left-wing states.

The amendment would not affect Illinois’s Congressional district or local maps.

Why isn't this being proposed in Ohio or Texas? Democrats are such pussies.

It was in Ohio. The people said no.

So I assume you were in favor of it, considering you are in favor of it in Illinois?

In favor of the campaign? Sure.

So you want non-partisan redistricting in both Ohio and Illinois?

That is for the people to decide. That said, this legislation does create a nicer set of standards for redistricting. Michigan already has the same.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/irs-stalled-conservative-groups-but-gave-speedy-approval-to-obama-foundation/2013/05/16/90c53e8a-be57-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_story.html

When the Barack H. Obama Foundation sought tax-exempt status to raise money for good works in Kenya, the Internal Revenue Service provided quick help.

The IRS approved charitable status for the foundation, which was run by President Obama’s brother and named after his father, in about a month’s time. The IRS also agreed to give the group this important financial status retroactively, back to 2009, when it had begun its fundraising.

The 34 days the IRS’s Cincinnati office took to process the foundation’s application stands in contrast to the waits of several months — and sometimes longer than a year — that several conservative groups say they experienced with the same office.







Ah. How nice of the IRS goons.

Why isn't this being proposed in Ohio or Texas? Democrats are such pussies.

It was in Ohio. The people said no.

So I assume you were in favor of it, considering you are in favor of it in Illinois?

In favor of the campaign? Sure.

Other polls from Marist and WaPo also had Mr. Cuccinelli in the lead.

Link

Cuccinelli 44
McAuliffe 36



Good news.

Why isn't this being proposed in Ohio or Texas? Democrats are such pussies.

It was in Ohio. The people said no.

Excellent.