You could be forgiven if you thought Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser played for our Rockies. Last week, with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) was a particular disaster, but the former law school dean’s performance throughout the entire SCOTUS session seems better suited to Coors Field than a courtroom. Unless there was Coors being served in the courtroom.

Reporter David Migoya and The Gazette have expended effort analyzing the performance of Colorado’s judges based upon their appellate win-loss record. It is time to do the same for the attorney general.

The overall numbers might prove to be exactly what voters wanted, but on many of the biggest cases — Weiser has whiffed at the plate.

Our AG is duty-bound to defend Colorado’s state convictions, laws, and executive actions, like those in 303 Creative and Counterman v. Colorado. However, Weiser has the discretion — not obligation — to use the authority we loaned him to weigh in on an unlimited number of SCOTUS cases through amicus briefs on behalf of one of the parties.

On four at-bats last week, Weiser went 0-4. The first two cases are requirements of Weiser’s position.

303 Creative

In a case involving whether the government could compel a Christian website designer to use her talents to advance beliefs (same-sex marriage) in opposition to her faith, Weiser chose to support the government over the individual’s First Amendment rights. This is on brand for the Weiser AG office, which consistently advances expansive governmental power over individual liberties.

SCOTUS decided against Weiser and sided with the First Amendment, which Weiser later hyperbolically described as “a loophole.”

The most disturbing aspect of Weiser’s comments is what appears to be misdirection as to his suggestion that he had always been dubious about the legitimacy of the case.

The record says otherwise. The AG’s office stipulated to the facts of the case, and in so doing, set up Colorado for failure at SCOTUS. Upset members of the LGBTQ community should demand to know why the AG’s office agreed to all of the facts of the case.

Counterman

On an appeal from a righteous conviction of a terrifying stalker from my jurisdiction while I was DA, Weiser argued the case. It is unclear why Weiser chose to handle a case in an area so foreign to him. Nobody would allow even the most skilled brain surgeon to treat pancreatic cancer for a loved one. Here, Colorado had a chiropractor doing heart surgery.

Phil, Colorado and the victim lost 7-2.

Even Justice Kagan — a former law school dean —voted against Weiser.

Unforced errors

The following cases are efforts wholly of Weiser’s choosing. Colorado was not required to get involved in these losing efforts.

Groff v. Dejoy

In a case involving the United States Postal Service failing to make reasonable accommodations for Groff’s faith (he had kept the Sabbath as a day of rest for years), Weiser weighed in with California and Massachusetts. SCOTUS voted in favor of the individual and against USPS 9-0. Another strikeout for Weiser.

Sackett v. EPA

A married couple purchased a piece of land upon which to build their house.

As they prepared the site for development, the EPA declared that a ditch on their land constituted “water of the U.S.” and demanded they reverse construction or face fines of $40,000 each day. More than half of the states in America signed onto a brief in opposition to the EPA’s overreaching land grab of private property. Colorado was not one of them.

Instead, Weiser filed his brief on behalf of — the EPA. SCOTUS ruled against the EPA action and in favor of private property rights 9-0.

Glacier Northwest

In Washington, striking Teamsters intentionally sought to cause damage to Glacier Northwest trucking company’s concrete trucks and the concrete they delivered.

When the victim company, Glacier, sought to recover damages from the Teamsters responsible for their maliciously caused losses, Weiser joined a brief with New York, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., in support of the vic … — nope.

He threw Colorado’s support behind the destroyers of private property — the union.

SCOTUS ruled against Weiser and the Teamsters by a vote of 8-1.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (CA, NY, IL, MA)

Harvard operated a race-based admissions process that discriminated against certain people of color, specifically Asian applicants. Weiser did not choose to stand for the victims of such a race-based policy.

Weiser — a graduate of an elite private school— stood for the elite private school.

SCOTUS ruled its “admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,“stating “(m)any universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin.

This nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.” Weiser called that opinion “misguided.”

Biden v. Nebraska

Despite nearly unanimous legal opinions stating he lacked the authority, President Biden oragami’d the HEROES Act in an effort to wipe away $430 billion in consented to educational debt owed to America without going through Congress. Again, Weiser partnered with California, New York and Massachusetts.

And again, SCOTUS rejected Wesier’s and Biden’s positions. In baseball, struggling players get sent to the minor leagues.

In Colorado, they get reelected and run for higher office. Colorado deserves better. Weiser deserves more scrutiny.

George Brauchler is the former district attorney for the 18th Judicial District. He also is an Owens Early Criminal Justice Fellow at the Common Sense Institute and president of the Advance Colorado Academy, which identifies, trains and connects conservative leaders in Colorado. He hosts “The George Brauchler Show” on 710KNUS Monday through Friday from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. Follow him on Twitter: @GeorgeBrauchler.