Rob Douglas

Rob Douglas 3 days ago on Fielding: Another name proposed

"Virtually Every Demographic Group Now Supports Gay Marriage"

see: http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/newsdesk/gay-marriage-polling-shows-american-support-across-demographic-groups-20150527

"As the chart below [see article] demonstrates, Gallup's surveys show that from 1996 through 2015, support for same-sex marriage has increased by at least 30 percentage points among virtually every major group in the population: men and women, whites and all nonwhites, whites with and without college education, adults at all ages, and those on all rungs of the income ladder.

"In only three groups did support for same-sex marriage increase by fewer than 30 percentage points since 1996: African-Americans (up 26 percentage points), Southerners (up 25), and Republicans (up only 21). Conversely, the biggest gains in support have occurred among Democrats (up 43 percentage points), those who live in the West (up 42), Midwesterners (up 39), and those aged 50 to 64 (also up 39).

"In absolute terms, the latest poll shows the greatest support for same-sex unions among young adults aged 18 to 29 (78 percent), Democrats (76 percent support), Hispanics (72 percent), and people who live in the West (68 percent). It records the lowest absolute support among African-Americans (49 percent), Southerners (48 percent), those aged 65 or older (47 percent), and Republicans (37 percent). The only other group that did not register majority support for gay marriage in the latest Gallup survey was the cohort of people who attend church at least weekly (also only 37 percent).

"Gay marriage also now draws support not only from 66 percent of single adults, but a solid 56 percent majority of married couples. (Comparisons to 1996 for these groups are not available because Gallup did not ask about church attendance or marital status in that earlier survey.)"

0

Rob Douglas 6 days, 4 hours ago on Our view: Free enterprise — up in smoke

I agree with every word of this editorial.

The statements during the meeting by Rocky Mountain Remedies co-owner Kevin Fisher, Golden Leaf co-owner Charlie Magnuson and the council (with the exception of Sonja Macys who I believe has distinguished herself as a council member to a degree I never imagined), provided a textbook example of disgraceful rent-seeking.

Having been an admirer of the way Kevin Fisher navigated the birth of the legal marijuana industry in a way that gave comfort to those who had doubts, it is disheartening to watch him attempt to close the door on those who might follow in his footsteps.

Fisher and the other local owners were able to capitalize on the libertarian spirit of Coloradans who were willing to defy the federal government by legalizing marijuana. Now Fisher and the other current owners want to use our local council as a regulatory body to block the granting of other marijuana sales licenses and, in so doing, prevent the natural progression and full implementation of Amendment 64.

As I said, classic and shameful rent-seeking - something that is common at the federal and state levels. Unfortunately, by its action this past week, the council can add rent-seeking to the other unseemly practices it has adopted.

0

Rob Douglas 1 week, 2 days ago on City council members raise concern about Triple Crown meetings

Our community owes Sonja Macys and Scott Ford gratitude for their vigilance in being sure that the public's business is conducted in public - not behind closed doors and/or by email.

Coincidentally, the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition - a non-partisan alliance of journalists, engaged citizens, and supporters of government transparency - released its 2015 Guide to Colorado’s Open Meetings & Open Records Laws today. That guide is available in PDF format at http://coloradofoic.org/files/2015/05/SunshineGuide2015.pdf

For further information, see: http://coloradofoic.org/download-2015-guide-to-colorado-sunshine-laws/

Hopefully, every council member and member of the city management team will obtain a free copy of the guide and study it for future reference.

0

Rob Douglas 3 weeks, 3 days ago on Hayden students seek justice for Syrian children

An excellent cause. Thank you to the teachers and students who are involved. Best of luck. And to Kendra DeMicco, safe travels!

0

Rob Douglas 1 month, 1 week ago on Boomer joins ranks at Sheriff's Office

Headline: "Supreme Court Says Police Violated 4th Amendment When Use of Drug-Sniffing Dog Prolonged Routine Traffic Stop"

From the article:

"In a 6-3 decision issued today in the case of Rodriguez v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Nebraska police violated the Fourth Amendment by extending an otherwise lawful traffic stop in order to let a drug-sniffing dog investigate the outside of the vehicle.

"According to the majority opinion of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, 'a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.'

"While 'an officer...may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop,' Ginsburg held, 'a dog sniff, unlike the routine measures just mentioned, is not an ordinary incident of a traffic stop.'

"At issue was a 2012 traffic stop conducted by a Nebraska police officer who happened to have his K-9 dog in the cruiser with him. When the stopped driver, Dennys Rodriguez, refused to consent to letting the drug dog walk around the outside of his vehicle, the Nebraska officer called for back-up, thereby prolonging the stop by an additional eight minutes. According to the Court’s ruling today, those extra minutes violated Rodriguez’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment."

The article has a link to the full opinion of the Supreme Court.

0

Rob Douglas 1 month, 1 week ago on First dog on Routt County Sheriff's roster being trained to track people, sniff out narcotics

Headline: "Supreme Court Says Police Violated 4th Amendment When Use of Drug-Sniffing Dog Prolonged Routine Traffic Stop"

From the article:

"In a 6-3 decision issued today in the case of Rodriguez v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Nebraska police violated the Fourth Amendment by extending an otherwise lawful traffic stop in order to let a drug-sniffing dog investigate the outside of the vehicle.

"According to the majority opinion of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, 'a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.'

"While 'an officer...may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop,' Ginsburg held, 'a dog sniff, unlike the routine measures just mentioned, is not an ordinary incident of a traffic stop.'

"At issue was a 2012 traffic stop conducted by a Nebraska police officer who happened to have his K-9 dog in the cruiser with him. When the stopped driver, Dennys Rodriguez, refused to consent to letting the drug dog walk around the outside of his vehicle, the Nebraska officer called for back-up, thereby prolonging the stop by an additional eight minutes. According to the Court’s ruling today, those extra minutes violated Rodriguez’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment."

0

Prev