Shouldn’t the ‘minimum-wage’ include compensating unpaid interns?

Loaded with optimism and student loans, the law grad sees the advertisement that reads: Democratic member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary seeks law clerk for Fall 2014, full time, unpaid.

Presuming that law grad did not have a trust fund or wealthy parents to subsidize the inflated cost of living for Washington, DC, working for the powerful on Capitol Hill would be outside consideration.

How in the world can those who tout raising the minimum wage get by without paying at least the minimum for assistance?

Before scratching your head too much, let’s look at the economic and legal dynamics involved in this

White House internship programme. 2011 Getty/McNamee.

conundrum.

During President Barak Obama’s 2014 State of the Union Address, he asked Congress to pass the Harkin and Miller bill and raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour. The President went one step further by unilaterally signing Executive Order 13659 which raises the wage of federally contracted workers to $10.10 per hour.

Perhaps it should be noted here that White House interns are not paid. Yet these are highly sought after positions that see young brains fulfilling a full time position for six months to a year.

According to a 2012 Intern Bridge survey, more than half of all post-undergrad and grad-school internships and traineeships are unpaid. Many students desperately really on these work related experiences to land higher paying career type jobs.

In the years since the 2007-08 Financial Crisis, unpaid internships and traineeships have become the new norm. Many companies were unable to pay new workers during the crisis and new workers were eager just to gain experience.

The wave of unpaid internships in the private sector came to a skidding halt in June 2013 when a federal district court in New York held in Glatt et al. v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. that the company had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying for “benefits received.”

The Department of Labor has developed a six-part test, based on Supreme Court case law relating to railroad company’s trainees, to determine whether for-profit companies must pay interns.

In short, in order for a private business to meet Labor’s standards, the internship must be wholly for the benefit of the intern and not the employer – that’s a pretty tough to satisfy.

According to The 2013 Student Survey, a graduate who had a paid internship experience makes a medium starting salary of $51,930, compared with $35,721 for those who had an unpaid internship experience.

Law firms are also willing to pay for new associate’s experiences and connections to judges and lawmakers through clerkships. Many firms will pay a 20% bonus on top of a starting salary.

President Obama announces a $10.10 hourly minimum wage
during the 2014 State of the Union Address. USAToday.

With some of the highest paid first-year associates earning just over $160,000, why are we worrying about the President and his Congressional cronies not paying their clerks?

Firstly, if it was the private sector, it would be illegal under the pay-for-benefits test.

Secondly, with the average law school debt in America hovering around $150,000, it is very difficult for a newly minted grad to go a year without a pay check, no matter how amazing the potential bonus, from the potential job, might be. Unless, of course that grad has the coveted silver-spoon in the mouth, in which case, even a minimum wage would be offensive to the privileged elite.

This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue; instead, this is a remnant of the old Governmental privilege which must go away. Currently, only the better-off people in society get to undertake such unpaid positions. The less fortunate must take paid positions that don’t come with connections.

If the President and Congress want everyone to be paid a proper wage, then shouldn’t “everyone” include the currently unpaid staff?

Coloradan Ron Binz is not suited to be FERC chairman

Senators Mark Udall & Michael Bennet introduce Ron Binz

Tuesday’s Senate confirmation hearing on Colorado’s Ron Binz to be President Barack Obama’s Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission chairman saw electromagnetic shock-waves blast from Alaska to West Virginia.

Senate committee hearings can be dry, dull and draining — perfect events for playing online poker or doodling.

Tuesday’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., was far from boring.

One lobbyist in line commented, “This is the first FERC appointee in my 30-year career which has drawn a crowd.” In fact, there were twice as many spectators as seats. A vast overflow spilled into the halls resembling a queue for a rock concert, rather than a committee meeting.

Energy transmitted over FERC-regulated pipes and wires is worth nearly $400 billion per year. Grand Junction’s Greg Walcher, in his book, “Smoking them out: The theft of the environment and how to take it back,” states that the transmission of power is the most difficult issue facing the environment today.

FERC regulates the transmission and wholesale sales of electricity in interstate commerce, along with licensing of electric production, pipelines and liquid natural gas terminals. FERC does not regulate the source, merely the transmission of electricity on the grid.

So, what is so controversial about Obama’s FERC appointee from Colorado?

Four things:

✔ The Colorado Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act

✔ The “30 percent by 2020” Colorado mandate

✔ Allegations of Binz misleading or lying to the Energy Committee’s ranking member

✔ Binz’s statement that natural gas would be a “dead end” by 2035.

Binz, the former chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission under Gov. Bill Ritter, co-authored Colorado’s controversial, $1.3 billion Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act of 2010, which pitted Colorado coal producers against the natural gas industry.

The act requires Xcel Energy to retire or retrofit 900 megawatts of Front Range coal-fired power plants into facilities fueled by natural gas or other energy sources.

The act received broad bipartisan support. Former Senate Minority Leader Sen. Josh Penry, then of Grand Junction, co-sponsored the legislation. Subsequently, Penry was criticized for accepting employment with an energy consulting firm.

The “30 percent by 2020” mandate was originally co-authored by Binz in 2007. It required Colorado’s energy providers to have 20 percent of their portfolios coming from renewables by 2020. The law was amended in 2010 to increase renewables to 30 percent.

Locally, state Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Aspen, who co-sponsored the 2020 mandate and represents a district with natural gas wells and coal mines, was criticized for destroying hundreds of western Colorado jobs.

The third controversy stems from the fact Binz told Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska he had not engaged the assistance of lobbyists to secure his nomination. However, open records of White House emails revealed Binz’s nomination was being coordinated by FERC staff, a PR firm and consultants.

The defense: Binz claims he did not pay for or ask for these services.

Finally, in a statement several years ago, Binz described natural gas as being a “dead end” by 2035 without carbon capture and sequestration. Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming directly asked Binz about this quote, to which he replied, “I believe the technology will be perfected by 2035.”

The “dead end” quote and beliefs about carbon capture and sequestration are likely to lump senators from coal and natural gas-producing states in the same camp, opposing Binz.

The Energy Committee has 22 members: 12 Democrats and 10 Republicans. All committee members vote. A tie vote ends the nomination. Simple majority sends the nomination to the full Senate for consideration.

Sen. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat is from a coal-mining state and has threatened to vote “nay.” If Manchin joins the Republicans, then the Binz nomination will fail.

Indications are that Obama suffered significant loss of political prestige from his venture into war mongering with Syria. Last week three Democrats opposed Larry Summers to be chairman of the Federal Reserve and Summers withdrew his name from consideration. And now, one Democrat — Manchin — is holding up the Binz nomination.

To understand the complexities of the controversy, one must understand the dynamics of traditional-versus-renewable energy producing states; power providers versus consuming states; and rich versus poor states.

Americans desire affordable power. However, the energy source is not always conveniently located to power plants, which are usually a long way from cities and our homes.

FERC is important because it regulates the transmission of electricity through power lines or gas through pipelines.

Binz’s history here in Colorado is one of picking winners and losers in the energy sector. FERC needs a chairman who is not gambling and playing politics at the expense of consumers who are paying higher electric rates year after year.

__________________________________________________________________

Soper, Matt.  "Coloradan Ron Binz is not suited to be FERC chairman." Grand Junction Daily Sentinel 22 Sept 2013: B7 <http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/coloradan-ron-binz-is-not-suited-to-be-ferc-chairm> accessed 22 Sept 2013

Legal & political aspects of military intervention in Syria

Should the US attack Syria? Has Assad used chemical weapons against his own people? Would US intervention violate public International law?

Regardless of the answers to these questions, an upcoming vote on Capitol Hill illustrates how foreign affairs are as much about domestic politics, as it is about International relations.

Syrian President Bashar  al-Assad and his wife, Amsa.

President Obama has played a brilliant game of chess against the Republicans. How you might ask?

Prudently, the President is wise in asking for a Congressional vote. It is a tough decision and vesting everyone in the decision process is smart.

Politically, a Congressional vote on Syria puts the Republicans on record prior to the 2014 mid-term

elections, which makes such a vote all the more sensitive and strategic.

The Constitution does not require the President to ask Congress’ permission to engage the armed forces in hostilities. War making powers are shared jointly between the Executive and Congress.

Is military action against Syria legal under public International law?

Under the UN Charter, states may only use force in two instances: self-defence or when the Security Council has authorized force to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Here, Syria has not attacked American citizens, assets, or allies; nor has the Security Council authorized the use of force. The Syrian government is merely engaging in an internal conflict to suppress rebels.

Additionally, Customary International law would allow Syrian government officials, such as Bashar al-Assad to be prosecuted for crimes against humanity and the use of chemical weapons, even though Syria has not become a party to the Genocide, Torture, or Ban on Chemical Weapons conventions.

Regardless of International conventions and customs, US law recognizes the ratified treaties at taking the same status as federal law. This means, the UN Charter, as a treaty, is tantamount to federal law. Congress is free to override federal law by adopting resolutions. So under an American law analysis, Congress can do whatever the hell it wants, so long as that action doesn’t violate the Constitution.

The notion that Congress must pre-approve military action is erroneous. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress a non-specific power to ‘declare war.’ However, of the 130 plus times military action has been taken abroad, Congress has only declared war 5 times.

US President Barak Obama with Speaker John Boehner (left).

Under the Presidential War Powers Act, President Obama, as commander-in-chief, may introduce the military to hostilities without Congressional notice for a period of 60 days. The Act goes on to mention that hostilities must comply with: (i) declaration of war, (ii) statutory authority, or (iii) national emergency. Additional time for hostilities is granted upon Congressional approval.

Here, President Obama would be allowed to introduce the military into foreign involvement without Congressional approval.

Why ask Congress for permission if President Obama doesn't legally need it?

Remember the mid-term elections are fast approaching. A Congressional vote on Syria puts the Republicans on record prior to the 2014 elections, which makes this vote highly political. This is why Speaker John Boehner, a supporter of Syrian intervention, isn't making this a partisan vote – he needs to ensure Republicans are re-elected.

Politically, the issue of Syria is dividing the Republican Party into the Paul Republicans (non-interventionists) and the McCain Republicans (the war-hawks).

Here in Western Colorado, Congressman Scott Tipton announced he would be voting ‘no’ during a town hall meeting recently in Durango.

Both of Colorado’s US Senators, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, are vacillating over how to vote regarding Syrian intervention to punish the use of chemical weapons.

Meanwhile, on the International stage (remember, I said foreign affairs was only partly about domestic politics), Russian President Vladimir Putin has asked the US to present evidence before the UN Security Council that the Assad government was responsible for the chemical weapons attack.

If the US proceeds without a UN Security Council resolution, then legally this action would be pre-emptive self-defence or a unilateral enforcement an International custom (the ban on chemical weapons). Both concepts would dramatically expand the Bush precedent.

Targeted Syrian assets.

Recently, in Stockholm, President Obama said, “My credibility isn't on the line, the whole international

community's credibility is on the line, Congress' credibility is on the line.”

Actually, Mr President, your credibility is on the line, as you’re the one proclaimed Syria used chemical weapons and that the US should take punitive action.

While the White House has gotten the entire International community in a frenzy, one thing is for certain, if the US strikes Syria, no longer will President Obama be able to blame the results on the George Bush Administration. 

2012 year-in-review: LL.B. to LL.M.

In the year since graduating from the University of Edinburgh much has happened in my life. I have gone from law student to campaign manager to youngest elected city council member of my home town to working for the leading NGO on maritime piracy to once again being a law student. In this time I have met and visited with the president, vice president, GOP challenger, a retired US Supreme Court justice, the highest judges from New Hampshire, Texas, and New York, along with visiting with Colorado's governor, New Hampshire's governor, Texas' governor, the junior US senator from South Dakota, and a former US senator from Pennsylvania, not to mention having lunch with a former governor of New Hampshire and a former US senator from Colorado. Life has also been challenging, I was present when my aunt Clara passed away and not long after that I received the letter saying I had been denied admittance to sit the New York bar. This resulted in me having to step down as trustee and pursue an LL.M. degree, which is one of the new requirements for sitting the bar. I also experienced the economic downturn, but applying to over 50 businesses and hearing no responses. Perseverance and no matter the odds, never give up, have become daily mantras. The following is a year in review:

27 November 2011 - graduated from University of Edinburgh with an LL.B. in Law

December 2011 - launched exploratory committee for a possible bid for the Colorado House of Representatives, Dist 61

January 2012 - began campaign manager for Bruce Hovde's re-election campaign for Delta County Commissioner, Dist 2

February 2012 - began campaign for Orchard City Board of Trustees

3 April 2012 - elected Orchard City's youngest Trustee

April - October 2012 I served on the Orchard City Board of Trustees. 

April 2012 - became campaign manager for Mark Roeber's Delta County Commissioner Campaign, Dist 3

May - August 2012 - maritime piracy legal researcher (intern) with Oceans Beyond Piracy, which is an NGO that provides research on the economic and human costs of piracy at sea, along with engaging stakeholders to find a governance based solution to countering piracy. Working included revising and enhancing counter piracy matrix, editing law reports, following pending criminal and tort cases, and providing information for diplomats, the military, and industry. 

September 2012 - begin LL.M. in Intellectual Property (IP) Law at the University of New Hampshire's School of Law (Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectually Property)

September 2012 - visited Portland, Maine; Kennybunkport, Maine; Boston, Massachusetts; Mount Washington, New Hampshire; the White Mountains of New Hampshire; Newport, Rhode Island

October 2012 - shook hands with President Obama in Portsmouth, NH; visited with Vice President Joe Biden in Concord, NH; talked constitutional law with form US Supreme Court Justice David Souter in Concord, NH; and gave words of encouragement to Mitt Romney in Manchester, NH.

October 2012 - travelled to New York City for the first time since I was 12 years old. Met up with my former Edinburgh flatmate and good friend, Fabio Pucci. We were flatmates for nearly 3 1/4 years. He was in NYC to present a paper at the Rockefeller. We went to the top of both the Rockefeller Center (Top of the Rock) and the Empire State Building. I stayed the first night in Harlem and the second in Times Square. Whilst walking in Central Park, I thought to myself Manhatten Island is crazy, fun, and looking at the buildings might injure my neck ;-) I also went to the cite of the World Trade Center attacks. I was disappointed that there were venders (including the National Commission) selling goods, profiting off of the dead of nearly 3,000. Fabio put things in perspective by saying the towers were about commerce and free enterprise, capitalism, and trade. "If there weren't venders selling goods and making money on the very site where so many died, then the terrorists would have won." 

October 2012 - sat the Multi State Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE), this exam, along with the Bar Exam, is required to be admitted to practice law.

October 2012 - visit Montpelier, Vermont

October 2012 - elected as a "write-in" to the Board of Governors of the New Hampshire Student Bar Association 

November 2012 - hung out with the Supreme Court Chief Justices of New Hampshire, Texas, and New York; in addition to having lunch with former New Hampshire Governor Steve Merrill.

Public law: Judges v Legislators

It wasn't until my jurisprudence class this year that I realized that the criticism of 'activist judges' is not actually as accurate as the term may suggest. At the Supreme Court level, judges tend to be more politicians and fewer jurists, as their decision creates a binding precedent which the lower courts are bound to follow. If the legislature deems the decision wrong, they have the ability to change the law, but the legislature process and multiple interests may make that nearly impossible, as we know.

At the lower level courts, judges, I'll argue, are actually more representative than legislators, as they see regular people every single day. Decisions made in courts directly affect the lives of the individuals and do not require the implementation of the bureaucracy. A judge in a lower court is bound under the law and the arguments set forth by the two sides.

I've been reading a text on piracy from the US Naval War College and there is a great summary on how our founding fathers left a lot of leverage and digression to the lower courts and knew that the supreme court was limited by the executive's willingness or unwillingness to implement a decision - as FDR illustrated, a decision out-with the agreement of the president may lead to packing the court by diluting the majority which ruled against the White House and Congress.

The counter argument is that legislators are more democratically accountable as they are elected by the people they represent, whereas judges are removed from the electoral process. Though in the many American states the Missouri Plan for selecting judges is used, whereby a judge is nominated by a judicial commission, selected by the state’s governor and confirmed by the state senate, then held up for a retention election every few years to ask the people if the judge is performing the duties charged under the constitution and laws of the state.

Prima facie, it is difficult to counter the argument that perhaps judges could be ‘closer’ to the people than legislators. Legislators are elected by their constituents for a prescribed term. Whereas judges are unelected, appointed for life tenure and they do not respond to the people in any direct way. The challenge to a representative democracy is that unelected individuals can overturn the decisions of an elected body, and therefore challenge the will of the people.

Legislators will often not contemplate the constitutionality of a proposed bill, but discuss the political reasoning or popular logic in the arguments debated in the committee rooms and on the floor of the assembly. At the turn of the 21^st Century, many members of the US Congress voted for campaign finance reform even though it was thought to violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court was almost set up for political failure as the decision was to (a) uphold the will of Congress and thereby the people or (b) uphold the validity of the US Constitution and the social contract which congress and the people are bound. The Court held the latter and was criticised for crafting ‘bench made law’ and also for ‘judicial activism’ and undermining the people’s elected representatives.

The British Parliament is supreme and therefore can do ‘whatever the hell it wants, whenever it wants’. The British Supreme Court (formerly the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords or simply, the House of Lords), cannot strike down an Act of Parliament for being unconstitutional, as the supremacy of parliament means the legislature and therefore the will of the people is absolute and cannot be undermined by the constitution and the supreme court, both of which are granted authority from parliament. The concept of judicial review is different in the America, as the US Constitution is regarded as ‘higher law’ and all other law is subordinate. Acts of Congress, case law, and regulations would all be subordinate to the US Constitution and therefore classified as ‘normal law’ or ‘ordinary law’. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. A constitution usually seeks to define the relationship the institutions of government, the relationship between the individual and the state, and provide limits on the power of the state, along with setting forth the goals and principles of the state, usually found within the preamble.

Judicial review by its nature undermines popular will, as all or part of a statute, passed by the legislature and given the force of law by the executive, can be declared ultra vires by a court, and struck down as unconstitutional. However, popular will in legislative terms is the support of the majority. This means that a minority in civil society may be largely unrepresented.

In Brown v Board of Education of Topeka (1954) 347 US 483, the US Supreme Court overturned their earlier decision of Plessy v Fergusson (1896) 163 US 537, which had upheld the post-Reconstruction (1877) doctrine of ‘separate, but equal’ enshrined in ‘Jim Crow’ laws, such as rules segregating public schools (Cumming v Richmond County Board of Education (1899) 175 US 528) in the American South as being within the ambit of the Constitution. The Court quickly followed the Brown precedent by holding segregation based on race within public spaces to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment to the US Constitution. Many US States tried to argue the 14^th Amendment only applied to Federal and not individual state citizenship (the Slaughter-House Cases (1873) 83 US 36). As Brown illustrates, nothing happened for the next fourteen years in regards to segregation, mainly due to a violent backlash from Southern states who claimed the Court was circumventing the democratic authority of the legislature. It was the legislatively crafted Civil Rights Act 1964 which finally brought an end to racial discrimination.

The function of the democratic accountability in the courts is to interpret the constitution in respect of popular opinion of the people. They filter public opinion through their decisions to interpret the constitution in consistency with public opinion. Judges interact with the public on such a regular basis that the knowledge of popular opinion and arguments presented is known and able to be effectuated through the decisions and judgements of the court. This school of thought is embodied by the American Realist movement, which began with US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the early 20^th Century. 

Lugar: Libyan "Conflict" lacks exit strategy, clear purpose, & US Senate approval to engage in war

US Sen Lugar (R-IN) has criticized Obama for deploying U.S. forces without a clear exit strategy, repeatedly called the conflict a “war” (a term the White House rejects), and said the president violated the Constitution in intervening without a formal authorization from Congress.[1]

Barack Obama left the Senate after two years there for a presidential run, making few close friends in the chamber because of his short tenure. But before he left, Obama cultivated an unlikely bond with a Republican US Senator 29 years his senior: Richard G. Lugar. Lugar was the former Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and negotiated the START Treaty. Many Democrats have floated Lugar's name as a possible Sec of State replace to Sec Clinton - not now, not after his remarks about Libya. Talk has shifted to Sen John Kerry.[2]

“The president still has not clearly stated what our goals are or what would constitute success. He has not stated whether the United States would accept a stalemate in the civil war, nor has he put forward a plan for ending Gaddafi’s rule,” Lugar said.[3]

The intervention in Libya is to oust an enemy of the US, create a new market for American energy companies (currently Libya has been dominated by Italian, British, French and Turkish Energy companies, which is anti-competition), use blow-up missiles so the US can purchase new ones (which helps the American Military Industry), and support the US allies in the NATO and the Arab League. Oh yes, and justify the war (my bad, “conflict”) with a UNSC resolution and calling the action one of humanitarianism. The US should be a pro at these things, they practiced in Iraq.

The senator’s criticisms of Obama’s Libya policy are similar to those of other members of both parties. Lugar is obviously one of those old anti-war, pro-rule of law, anti-humanitarian and anti-capitalistic Republicans. He should be ashamed of not seeing the potential economic benefits of Libya and the potential of killing an enemy of the US - Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi.[4]
____________________________________

[1] Landler & Shanker. "Gates and Clinton Unite to Defend Libya Intervention, and Say It May Last Awhile" The New York Times 28 March 2011 p A9
[2] "US public, Congress remain skeptical of Libyan mission" DEUTSCHE WELLE 1 April 2011 accessed 3 April 2011
[3] Bacon, P. "On Libya, former ally takes on Obama" The Washington Post 2 April 2011 accessed 3 April 2011 [4] Shanker & Cooper. "Doctrine for Libya: Not Carved in Stone" The New York Times 30 March 2011 accessed 3 April 2011

Colorado Primary 2010: Post Election Analysis

Post election analysis are akin to Monday morning quarterbacking, but the opportunity to debrief and objectively look at what were strengths and weaknesses of certain political campaigns in Colorado’s 2010 Republican Primary Election is worthwhile. The majority of the candidates who won were novices to the grand political arena, backed largely by the right-wing movement known collectively as the “Tea Party,” a term conjuring thoughts of the Boston Tea Party of 1773, in which some 342 chest of East India Co. tea were destroyed by protesters, dressed as Mohawk Indians, who were against a series of taxes imposed on the colonists by Great Britain, including a tax on tea.

The current Tea Party movement is against the entire Washington establishment, regardless of political party, though ideologically it is more aligned with the Libertarian Party, than with the Republican Party. The mantra of “change” started during the 2008 US Presidential Election has sparked a revolutionary style movement from the grass-roots level and the message seems to be clear: No more individuals who are part of the establishment, no more career politicians, no more candidates with experience in the public sector, along with favouring fewer taxes, a balanced budget, and less government intrusion into the daily lives of citizens. Followers of the movement tend to be highly nationalistic and nostalgic about the good old days. Former 2008 GOP Presidential nominee and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is considered the uniting figure-head of the Tea Party movement.

So what happened in Colorado in August 2010? An election change, while subtle had a major impact on campaign strategy. This election was completely mail-ballot, which meant a campaign had to adjust political marketing tactics accordingly. Voters also tended to vote in three waves (early, middle and near election day), a candidate like Ray Scott managed to capitalize on these voting waves by sending out three mail pieces, one was a get to you letter, the next was a positive/negative comparison with his opponent, Bob Hislop, and the third was a Political Action Committee (PAC) funded mail piece which aggressively attacked Hislop. These mail pieces were very effective and managed to give voters a sense of who he is/was, on his terms, and put his name in front of the voters at the same time they had their ballots.

Bob Hislop on the other had had three times the campaign budget of Scott, but took an entirely different strategy. Hislop invested in radio and television ads and later online and in-print advertising. While effective to raise his name ID in the target market that listens to certain radio stations, watches certain TV programming, or reads certain newspapers, but failed to consider the entire voter-universe, that being all registered voters in Colorado House District 54. This is the same reason why Doug Atchley defeated Vern McCracken for Delta County Commission, district one. Atchley out-raised and out-spent McCracken, but Atchley invested in four direct mail-pieces: one to the county assembly delegates, another inviting folks for a regional meet & greet / coffee, a third the day the ballots were received, and a fourth hitting the middle wave of voters. Vern opted to walk precincts, use robo calls, and radio ads, rather than sending a single direct mail piece. Atchley won with nearly 70% of the vote. This is also the reason why Greenwood Village Mayor, Nancy Sharpe, defeated former 4-term Colorado House Representative Lorry Clapp for Arapahoe County Commissioner. Sharpe had the good fortune of having Clapp’s campaign manager caught on video-tape by the police having her young son steal signs and then bringing them back to her car. Clapp picked up a bizarre sympathy gain on Election Day, which is worthy to note.

Jane Norton, a former Lieutenant Governor of Colorado, lost to Ken Buck, the Weld County District Attorney. Norton became blamed as being part of the establishment, while Buck early on touted himself as the Tea Party candidate. Both Norton and Buck used direct mail pieces, but while Jane’s were clever, Buck’s were hard hitting, liking Norton to tax hikes, failed policies, and wasteful spending. These mail pieces, radio ads, TV ads, online ads, and print ads started early and continued to build. Norton first began attacking US Senator Michael Bennet, whom she assumed she would be facing in November. After State Senator Josh Penry dropped out of the governor’s race, Norton tapped Penry to be her campaign manager, a move which stunned many regional political junkies. The change in strategy occurred too late, the damage was sticking, because the attacks had been used long enough and hard enough that by Election Day, many voters believed the fallacies about Norton to be true. Buck made two off-the-wall comments in the late part of the election, which Norton capitalized on to gain lost ground, but unfortunately there wasn’t enough time in the game to score the needed percentage points in order to squeak out a victory which had been winnable back in January.

Dan Maes, an Evergreen, Colorado businessman, defeated former six term Colorado congressman, Scott McInnis by one percentage point. Maes, who claimed the title of Tea Party favourite was never suppose to win, however McInnis was attacked relentlessly by the media, who alleged he plagiarized multiple documents, including portions of a series of 26 papers he wrote on water policy, a line in a Washington Post editorial and a sentence in a Congressional House speech. Insiders claim the attack was leaked to the media by Maes’ camp and given the Denver media’s affinity towards their mayor, John Hickenlooper (who is the Democrat running for governor), it is no surprise they ran with it. Maes was fined $34,000 for illegal transfer of campaign monies, something which would be called boarder-line money laundering in the business world, but received a plea down $17,500 fine, which is still one of the largest rendered in Colorado history. McInnis defeated himself through the handling of the plagiarism scandal, as he went into hiding, then continued to make it worse for himself by placing the blame on an 82 year old, whom he had hired to do research for the water papers, not to mention failure to communicate with those involved to nip the story, before it could snowball. Maes is being preasured to leave the race by former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo, who is running for governor on the American Constitutional Party ticket and is polling at a higher level than Maes. Top donors and party officials would also like to see Maes replaced with a much more electable candidate like Josh Penry, Mark Hillman, or the founder of ReMax, though serious talk cannot begin until Maes resigns from running, a move he said he will not take.

The victories indicate the Tea Party has clout in the Republican Party and that certain party members want to see completely new faces in politics. While Tea Party candidates were on the whole, terrible fundraisers, they were tremendously helped by PACs and 527s which funnelled millions of dollars into defeating opponents of the Tea Party. The real test will be in November 2010, when the general voting population will be asked to evaluate a Tea Party candidate v. a Democrat one.

Pres. Obama's choice in Kagan extremely disappointing

President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to replace retiring US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is extremely disappointing. Kagan – a Manhattan, New York native – has many positive attributes, such as having been educated at Princeton, Oxford, and Harvard Universities, serving as a clerk to former Justice Thurgood Marshall, and working in the Executive Office of the President during the Clinton Administration, before serving as dean of Harvard Law School, along with serving on the advisory council for Goldman Sachs (firm which accepted $12.9 billion in taxpayer funded bailout dollars). Kagan is currently Solicitor General, a position in which President Obama appointed her at the beginning of his administration.

If Kagan is confirmed by the US Senate, then all the justices on the Supreme Court will either be Harvard or Yale Law alumni, either Catholic or Jewish (retiring Justice Stevens is currently the only Protestant on the bench), and all nine justices would be from either the greater New York City area or central California; with the lone exception being Clarence Thomas, who is the only African American on the Court and the only member from the South.

President Obama missed a golden opportunity to appoint someone from the American West or Mid-West to serve on the high court. Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired from the Court in January 2006, was the last justice from the American West. The Supreme Court should be diverse and representative of the nation as a whole, however only considering individuals who are either from New York or California, a Harvard or Yale law graduate, a Catholic or Jewish is not diverse, nor is it representative. Justice Stevens may have come from an elite Chicago family, but he served with pride in the US Navy and then earned his J.D. from Illinois’ Northwestern University School of Law. O’Connor and Stevens, neither of whom were Ivy League Scholars, were Protestants from between the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards and have been regarded as two of the most tremendous legal minds of our generation.

Kagan, who holds that her personal opinions and personal life will not affect her judgement, is a far cry from Stevens, who many have regard as being on the liberal side of the Court. While White House aides assure the media that Kagan is not a lesbian, former Harvard Law students, the Gay and Lesbian Fund, and others claim her nomination as a victory for lesbians around the world. Kagan, who has been adamantly against the War of Terror (including operations in Afghanistan and Iraq), banned the military recruiters from the Harvard campus. Later, she claimed this was a reprisal for the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy toward homosexuals in uniform – a policy which was implemented in the early days of the Clinton Administration and has recently seen opposition from former Vice President Dick Cheney and current Defence Secretary Robert Gates. Kagan has been an active voice for the gay and lesbian community. Using Kagan as a ‘Trojan horse’ to push a lesbian onto the Supreme Court seems intellectually dishonest and the American people deserve open and frank answers about who it is that will serve them on the highest court in the land.

There are many well qualified candidates who would have maintained an ideology similar to the president and not have been from the Ivy League, the East Coast, or a liberal Jewish heritage. The American people, of whom the majority are protestant, deserve at least one-out-of-nine justices who represent their perspective. The Mid-West, West, and South have very tremendous jurists who fit the demographic missing from the Supreme Court. Kagan’s anti-military, anti-Christian, and pro-gay, along with politically liberal ideology makes her a very scary choice for the Supreme Court. If confirmed, Kagan would be the youngest justice at age 50 and if she serves as long as 90 year old Justice Stevens, then America is heading towards a very progressive era of liberal judge made law with little or no respect for the text of the Constitution.

See: Grand Junction Daily Sentinel