Pueblo Chieftain Backs Bob Schaffer

Having heard rumors that this decision was up in the air, and may even swing to Boulder liberal Mark Udall, it is good to see the Pueblo Chieftain has endorsed Bob Schaffer:

On the national scene, we believe Bob Schaffer would provide a rational, conservative voice to the Senate at a time when liberal Democrats hope to make greater inroads in growing government. Bob Schaffer is committed to limited government as the best way to assure our personal liberties.

A Sen. Schaffer would support nominees for the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, who are constitutional constructionists. He, like we, believes in the separation of powers in the federal government, with legislation being the sole province of Congress and constitutional review of legislation being the sole province - the sole role - of the judiciary.

Bob Schaffer has made it clear that he supports American victories in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have too much at stake in assuring our national security to let the terrorists claim victory in the Middle East.

The Chieftain's editors go on to make an argument also made by the Grand Junction Sentinel in their endorsement - namely, that a principled and articulate conservative like Bob Schaffer will be needed to provide balance in a U.S. Senate that looks to be much more liberal next session.

Interestingly, conservative commentator Mike Rosen makes the same argument in his unsurprising endorsement of Bob Schaffer.

With the Chieftain weighing in, that makes two major newspapers coming down for Mark Udall (the Left-leaning Denver Post and Boulder Daily Camera) and two for Bob Schaffer.

Udall on Legal Ethics Reform?

This author just wrote a long essay promoting legal ethics reform on thecoloradoindex. It was titled Roe Will Be Law Forever, Suck It Up.

It contained the following passage:

Roe v Wade came about because of the actions of a few secular judges who were raised up in their professional life in an environment where the Constitution was not seen as democracy's shield. It had become and remains liberalism's sword. Liberals believe that the ends justify the means.

That brings us to our question for Mark Udall:

If the upbringing of children can impact their life's choices, why would an unethical upbringing of lawyers not also impact their choices as judges? Do you support getting rid of unethical lawyers as early in their career as possible, before they can be nominated to be judges?

We'd bet not.

Just Wondering About Gun Rights

Today's Rocky Mountain News has an excellent editorial on gun rights. It should be excellent, as it was written by one of the attorneys involved in getting the issue before the US Supreme Court.

Traditionally, left wing politicians, and Mark Udall has been called that more than once by his allies in the press and the blogosphere, have been opposed to gun rights. Of late, the left has tried to finesse the issue by claiming to be in favor of "hunter's rights."

If nothing else, this Supreme Court case will force Mark Udall to clarify his position on gun rights. It remains to be seen if he will be telling his patrons and potential constituents that he would vote to confirm judges who would restrict gun rights, or if he actually favors allowing the public to protect itself by owning guns.

Does Udall Like Fillibusters?

Leslie Southwick was confirmed to the 5th Circuit today. Some on the left are baiting Ken Salazar because he didn't stop the confirmation through filibuster when he could have. Salazar did vote against Southwick in the actual vote.

It is time to ask Mark Udall how he would have voted on the filibuster issue. Does he favor preventing judicial candidates like Southwick from coming up for a vote if they are nominated by a Republican President?

Not So Fast

California sued six auto companies for manufacturing vehicles that create greenhouse gasses. It was a lawsuit that only the Sierra Club and Mark Udall could have loved. The Gazette had a very good editorial on it today.

U.S. District Judge Martin J. Jenkins ruled that the courts aren’t the venue to settle arguments over how much automobiles contribute to greenhouse gases, which the state contends damage the environment by heating the atmosphere. Congress and the federal Environmental Protection Agency are the proper bodies to take up that issue, the judge ruled.

The state asked the court to “balance the competing interests of reducing global-warming emissions and the interests of advancing and preserving economic and industrial development.” But “balancing of those competing interests is the type of initial policy determination to be made by the political branches, not this court,” Jenkins wrote.

Anyone who thinks that the issue is closed hasn't remembered that the 9th Circus will have its say. This will very likely be settled in the Supreme Court.

It is time to think about the kind of Justice that Mark Udall would vote to confirm if he were in the Senate. Would he want a Justice who allowed states to destroy major industries in court on questionable science, or would he require, as Judge Jenkins did, that the issue be settled by the Congress. History suggests that Udall would choose to try to destroy the economy through court action.

Annoy Mark Udall and the Sierra Club today. THINK!