Comments on: Rule of Law or Rule by Whimsy? or “What Makes a good Judge?”

By: Priz

Priz — Tue, 11 May 2010 22:22:08 +0000

We only selectively enforce the laws of this nation. When a state passes a law requiring police officers to enforce federal laws, it is called racial hatred. President Obama attacked Arizona for enforcing the law. So, why would anyone expect judges to respect the law?

By: Director

Director — Sat, 09 May 2009 18:21:06 +0000

For “EZErnie” –

What part of “districts must have voter approval in advance for… any new tax, tax rate increase, mill levy above that for the prior year, valuation for assessment ratio increase for a property class, or extension of an expiring tax, or a tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district” is NOT clear?

You must be a lawyer…

I don’t disagree that on some fine points of law, reasonable people may disagree on the interpretation and application in some instances. However, some “intelligent” judges have clearly violated the “black-letter law” in several recent high-profile cases – and their repeated hostility to certain sections of the Constitution (i.e. TABOR) makes it clear that they are motivated by desire for a particular outcome, not an “honest” difference in view.

You’re trying to pull the “leave it to the professionals” card, playing up the angle of wise, all-knowing judges lording their superior intellect and knowledge over the merely mortal citizenry. However, the law IS clear – and MEANS WHAT IT SAYS.

Unlike you, apparently, I trust the informed and educated citizenry to be able to read the law – once brought to their attention – and draw their own conclusions.

As to “who is to judge:” the citizens of Colorado, in whom ALL political power is ultimately vested, have not only the RIGHT, but the DUTY to do so…

I trust that an informed electorate will indeed render their verdict on these “unjust justices” and vote “NO on retention in 2010.

By: EZErnie

EZErnie — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:01:28 +0000

It would be nice if the “stated intent and letter of the law” was perfectly clear. Unfortunately, just like the rules of the game, different referees interpret the rules somewhat differently. And very intelligent judges who are very well versed in the law may legitimately differ on how the intent and/or letter of a particular law should be interpreted and applied in a particular case. And who is to judge whether those different interpretations are the result of personal feelings about the issue at hand or different opinions as to what the stated intent and letter of the law is.

By: Wesley

Wesley — Tue, 05 May 2009 23:58:38 +0000

Totally agree. The courtroom is no place for prejudice. If we’re not going to operate by the rule of law in the courtroom, then society really has no need for the courts.