A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, May 11, on whether Elena Kagan’s lack of judicial experience makes her qualified to sit on U.S. Supreme Court:
By most accounts, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is an achiever in the world of law, combining a brilliant mind with political acumen.
However, Kagan’s impressive resume does not include her ever having been a judge—a gaping hole for someone who now aspires to be a high court justice.
As members of the Senate contemplate her nomination, it will be of utmost importance to determine whether Kagan, solicitor general for the Obama administration, is qualified.
Sticking to that task, particularly in an election year, will be a tall order.
If confirmed, Kagan would be the third woman on the nine-person bench, giving the Supreme Court some much-needed gender diversity.
We expect the confirmation process will be complicated by Kagan’s lack of a record on important issues likely to come before the court. While Kagan has ascended to some of the most important positions in law—she was the highly successful first female dean of Harvard Law School and she clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall—she has kept her own legal views quiet.
We suppose this is particularly attractive to the Obama administration, which would prefer not to have a bruising public battle over hot-button issues such as abortion, guns and race.
With Democrats worried about losing seats in the mid-term elections, the last thing the party wants is to give conservatives a hook to draw like-minded voters to the polls.
Meaning, if Kagan had a view on abortion that was particularly inflammatory to the right, it would be used to energize social conservatives.
Along those lines, expect much to be made of Kagan’s decision to ban military recruiters from campus. As dean of Harvard’s law school, she signed on to a friend-of-the-court brief in which she argued the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy violated Harvard’s right to prohibit discriminatory employers from the school.
Efforts will be made to paint her as having an anti-military bias.
It won’t just be those on the right trying to determine Kagan’s ideological makeup. Lefties already are wondering about her views as well.
Will they be getting a wolf in sheep’s clothing? During confirmation hearings held for Kagan as she aspired to be solicitor general, she said she believed someone who was suspected of helping finance al-Qaeda—even if captured far from a battle zone—should be subject to indefinite detention without a trial.
This is at odds with civil liberties groups, which have argued that such suspects have a right to a trial. Expect the topic of executive power to come up at the hearings.
But the confirmation process shouldn’t be about extracting opinions and particular legal positions from nominees. It really must be about whether Kagan has the abilities and temperament required to be a Supreme Court justice.
During the last several decades, the Senate has become more aggressive in voting for or against a nominee based on political views. We hope senators resist this trend.
At confirmation hearings expected to take place this summer, Kagan deserves a thorough yet fair review based on her resume and record.
Editorial:
———
The (Greeley) Tribune, May 9, on why Arizona’s immigration law won’t solve what is a federal problem:
That giant sucking sound we’ve been hearing is created by the national leadership vacuum failing to face up to illegal immigration.
The mess created in Arizona can be traced directly back to our weak-kneed federal officials who are more concerned about re-election than they are solving an issue that is rocking the country.
Arizona, feeling under siege from illegal immigration with no help in sight from Washington reacted in its defense with a law of its own. Too bad it didn’t do a better job with it.
The result was a law that opens the door for U.S. citizens to be profiled based on their looks, and unleashed a barrage of economic threats and boycotts from those who oppose it.
Colorado and other states looking to Arizona for guidance should stand back and watch to see how the law works before thinking of it as a model.
Reasonable people might hope that the federal government would now recognize that Southern border states are fed up and desperate. After all, immigration is a national issue, indeed a national responsibility.
Don’t expect the federal government, however, to pass meaningful immigration reform anytime soon.
President Barack Obama called the Arizona law “misguided” and said he hadn’t forgotten about his promises of tackling immigration reform. That’s not exactly a strong reaction.
Arizona’s own Sen. John McCain, once a national political force, is back-pedaling as fast as he can from his earlier stances on immigration reform. What matters far more to him is getting re-elected.
Arizona’s former Gov. Janet Napolitano brought her knowledge of dealing with border issues when she became Homeland Security Secretary. Heard anything from her lately? Arizona’s current governor waffled back and forth before signing the measure she was clearly uncomfortable with. Yup, up for election.
We can’t fault Arizona for giving up watching the horizon for the federal rescue that just wasn’t coming. We can fault the state’s leaders for pushing through a measure that clearly needs work and puts anyone who doesn’t match a police officer’s vision of “American” at risk of having to prove citizenship. Court challenges are lining up.
We agree with the following points in an editorial in the Arizona Republic of Phoenix, of what proper immigration reform looks like. Reform must: Secure the border so that people entering this country are doing so legally and we know who they are.
Eliminate the access to jobs that migrants are willing to risk their lives to reach.
Include an efficient system to verify worker eligibility and tough sanctions for employers who hire the undocumented.
Provide a realistic and efficient path to legalization that has to be earned by the current undocumented population, or they must leave.
Create a legal pipeline for temporary workers.
Those who violate the laws should be prosecuted, punished and deported.
We should demand the federal government step up and step in before we have a mess of inconsistent state laws that create an even bigger mess.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, May 6, on how debate affects lawmakers’ ability to regulate marijuana use in orderly fashion:
Debate clouding Colorado pot rules
At the beginning of this year’s session of the Colorado General Assembly, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agreed that a top issue to be addressed would be the regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the state.
Regulating those dispensaries—an offshoot of a 2000 ballot initiative allowing the use of marijuana as a treatment option for those suffering from debilitating medical conditions—seemed obvious.
It still does.
Municipalities across the state have been waiting for lawmakers to address key provisions of medical marijuana dispensaries and treatment. Cities and counties want to know whether they have the right to use zoning codes and ordinances to limit dispensary locations, and the business owners behind the dispensaries are looking for some certainty, too. Also, they want to know whether the state will use the hammer of high fees to drive many of them out of business.
Lawmakers continued to debate bills May 5 that would allow cities to bar dispensaries and would require the dispensaries to grow 70 percent of the marijuana they sell. Some lawmakers also are looking to regulate the hours dispensaries are open.
Unfortunately, some provisions could be poison pills to a majority of legislators, meaning the chance for meaningful reform would be dead for the year.
That would mean another year of patchwork regulations among cities and counties, with dispensary owners and patients caught in the middle.
Legislators need to find common ground to allow all of those affected by medical marijuana’s explosion in Colorado to be addressed in an orderly fashion. It should start this legislative session.
Editorial:
———
Aurora Sentinel, May 5, on need for financial transparency from those sponsoring three state ballot measures:
As state lawmakers through the ages here in Colorado have discovered and rediscovered, nothing in regards to the people’s business doesn’t benefit from transparency and openness.
Tax protester Douglas Bruce and his cohorts need to learn the same thing.
Bruce and company have been fighting hard to hide from state officials just who it is was that collected hundreds of thousands of signatures for three statewide ballot measures and where the money came from to complete the project.
The three measures, amendments 60, 61, and Proposition 101, are set for the November ballot, after paid and other petition passers collected about 140,000 signatures for each measure, according to a story by the Colorado Springs Gazette.
The measures are designed to further limit the ability of local governments and school districts to collect taxes. One measure would cut school-district property taxes in half. Another measure would restrict governments’ ability to borrow money. And the final measure would cut back state motor vehicle fees and reduce the state income tax.
There’s little doubt that each of these measures would have catastrophic effects on a wide range of state government services, so there’s good reason for the keen interest in just who it is pushing to get these measures on the ballot, and how.
News stories from earlier this year revealed that at least several of the paid petition circulators live in a Colorado Springs apartment building owned by Bruce.
That by itself is intriguing, but it’s hardly a smoking gun pointing to corruption. But as Bruce and other supporters of these measures were pressed for answers as to where the money came from for circulating the petitions, each and every one began to clam up.
Why? Each answers that the government has no need to know such information, and they’ve refused to supply answers. That’s resulted in Colorado secretary of state and attorney general in preparing to legally force Bruce and company to make an appearance to answer questions.
While Bruce’s disdain for the government is renowned, he forgets that the government is the people, and the people have a right to know everything about what, who and how ballot measures find their way to polling places on Election Day.
Bruce and others do their causes no justice by continuing to keep mum on important details. Rather than allowing state officials to force Bruce and others to reveal details about these measures, they would do better to come clean on information on their own.
State “sunshine” laws play an important part of keeping Colorado’s government honest and above board. Whether the governing comes directly from the people or from their elected officials, it’s imperative that the all of the people’s business be open and accountable.
Editorial:
