Clear the Bench Colorado

After missing out on testifying during the first (and very extended) day of hearings on the “Dirty Dozen” tax increase bills on Wednesday/Thursday and being repeatedly interrupted and ultimately gaveled down when offering opposition testimony earlier in the morning, Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold was finally allowed to testify in opposition to one of the final bills under consideration (House Bill 10-1199: Net Operating Loss Deduction (Ferrandino/Heath) - Limits net operating losses to $250,000 for the next three years) at nearly high noon (appropriately?) on Friday.

Following the previous experience of repeated interruptions, Director Arnold spent some time before returning to the witness chair in writing up some prepared remarks, which follow:

I rise again in opposition to yet another unconstitutional stealth tax increase under consideration by this committee.

I will not appeal to your civility - by your conduct and demeanor, it is apparent that you have none.

I will not appeal to your respect for the Colorado Constitution and your oath of office - it is apparent that you have none.

I will not appeal to your sense of shame - again, it is clear that you have none.

I will address the specifics of this particular bill - and the inevitable impacts to business that will result, as well as the clear violations of the Colorado Constitution (Article X, Section 20 - TABOR).

There can be no question but that this bill represents “a tax policy change…  resulting in a net revenue gain” and therefore, under the Colorado Constitution, requires a vote of the people.

I am acutely aware of the anti-constitutional ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court in the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” case that put these tax credits & exemptions on the chopping block, and the interpretation of that language that some among you feel justifies this stealth attempt at increasing the tax burden on Colorado citizens and businesses.

Subsection (4)(a) [the requirement that tax increases receive prior approval by a vote of the people] must be read in conjunction with the other provisions of article X, section 20; specifically, the subsection (7) revenue limits. When read together, it becomes apparent that a “tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district” only requires advance voter approval when the gain exceeds one of the subsection (7) revenue limits. …

To avoid such a result, we find that a “tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain” only requires voter approval when the revenue gain exceeds the limits dictated by subsection (7).

Even under this dubious interpretation, this particular bill - because it imposes additional tax increases that will fall AFTER suspension of the subsection (7) limits due to Referendum C EXPIRE - is an even more clear violation of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

39-22-504. Net operating losses. (6) (a) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS SECTION, THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF NET OPERATING LOSS THAT A CORPORATION MAY SUBTRACT FROM FEDERAL  TAXABLE INCOME PURSUANT TO SECTION 39-22-304 (3) (g) FOR A TAX YEAR COMMENCING ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2011, BUT PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2014, IS TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.

For that reason, you are failing in your fiduciary duty to the citizens of Colorado by attempting to pass legislation that cannot pass Constitutional muster, and WILL fall to the inevitable legal challenge - even under the expansive definitions adopted by the current Colorado Supreme Court majority.

On the business front - this bill unfairly penalizes those businesses who have toughed out the worst hits just when they might be getting on the path to recovery.  Adding additional tax burdens on businesses struggling to escape bad years will RETARD any incipient recovery, delaying their ability to create jobs and generate revenue (which will have a net negative effect on revenues for the state).

Playing semantic games about “repealing” vs. “deferring” the tax credit is disingenuous - forcing businesses to provide the government an interest-free loan is a tax by any other name - and smells just as rank.

Pretending that not having funds available NOW - opportunity costs - does not impact business is either disingenuous or shockingly ignorant of economic facts.

Businesses also rely on a certain amount of regulatory stability and generally on the rule of law - changing the rules in the middle of the game decreases investment and willingness to take risk.

This bill will not only damage businesses, but also violate the constitutional rights of Colorado citizens to exercise prior approval on tax increases.

Following my testimony, the committee members weighed in with their own statements and comments.  Rep. Cheri Gerou (R-HD35) graciously apologized on behalf of the committee for the chair’s earlier abusive conduct.  Rep. Daniel Kagan (D-HD3 by way of Great Britain) rebuked criticism of the bill on constitutional grounds and continued by lecturing on the Constitution - all while insisting “I will not enter into a debate on the Constitution” (of course not; lecturing from the rostrum is much more his style).  [Interestingly enough, Rep. Kagan - who's income is derived exclusively from overseas business holdings, presumably NOT subject to the tax increases he is proposing - seems to have a unique perspective on public-private sector relations]:

“We are operating as a collective… to provide supports to the private sector.”  ”We cannot provide them without some money - we just need a ’small slice’ of everyone’s money to provide these service. We’re in a joint venture to ensure that industry thrives.”

Rep. Judd, although on greatly improved behavior, could not seem to stop himself from interrupting on several occasions - including one in which he stated that he “would not stand… for interruptions.”  (Seems to be lacking the irony gene).

At least this time, testimony was not “gaveled closed” prior to completion.

Don’t let YOUR voice be “gaveled down” this November - you CAN exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on the four ‘unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your homes and business from seizure by rapacious governments, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of rule by an oligarchy of activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Help to Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO” vote on retaining these unjust justices!

From the “any press is good press” files…

Appearing Friday morning to testify against the remaining unconstitutional stealth tax increase bills that had NOT (yet) been rammed through on a party-line vote by the Colorado House Finance Committee over the overwhelming opposition of citizens appearing en masse Wednesday/Thursday (specifically, against House Bill 1195: Suspend Agricultural Sales and Use Tax Exemption (Ferrandino/Heath)), another unconstitutional tax increase on Colorado ranchers and farmers, Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold may have crossed a linguistic line in response to abusive conduct by the committee chair, Rep. Joel Judd, in a story that appeared on KMGH-7 nightly news and online:

Witness calls committee chairman an “arrogant SOB”

Responding to repeated interruptions by the chair, who ultimately did not allow the witness to get back to the specifics of the bill being heard before “gaveling down” discussion and closing testimony on the bill (with a malicious, triumphant gleam), it is true that the witness… stated: “You are a rather arrogant SOB, are you not, sir,” as he was leaving the table.

Although the use of the term “arrogant” was, if anything, an understatement (by their conduct and demeanor, Rep. Judd and others clearly do not believe that either element of the term “Civil Servant” should apply to them), the use of the term “SOB” (yes, it was the acronym) was clearly inappropriate.

Clear The Bench Colorado disavows any perceived aspersion on Rep. Judd’s parentage - such was not intended; it’s quite likely that his mother is a sweet little old lady who would be ashamed at his lack of manners and common courtesy.

Clear The Bench Colorado further apologizes to all dogs and dog-lovers throughout the state - particularly the female dogs - for inappropriately associating them with Finance Chairman Rep. Judd.  Clear The Bench Colorado recognizes the foremost qualities of canines as being both loyal & lovable - attributes clearly NOT shared by the House Finance Committee chair.

In all seriousness - it is a sad statement that the media coverage of this ‘linguistic flap’ has focused NOT on the frequently disrespectful, often abusive treatment of citizens (myself least among them) who took time from their jobs, family, and friends to come down to the state Capitol to testify against these dozen distinct assaults on their livelihood, but played up the “if it bleeds, it leads” aspect of the statement by one citizen who dared speak out against the arrogance on display.

Don’t let YOUR voice be “gaveled down” this November - you CAN exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on the four ‘unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your homes and business from seizure by rapacious governments, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of rule by an oligarchy of activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Help to Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO” vote on retaining these unjust justices!

The Colorado Legislature received public testimony yesterday (continuing into today) - overwhelmingly in opposition - to the “Dirty Dozen” stealth tax hike bills exploiting a recent Colorado Supreme Court ruling to avoid the TABOR requirement that tax increases receive prior approval by a vote of the people.

It was readily apparent from the tone of the committee majority’s remarks to, and treatment of, ordinary citizens who came to register their opposition that the representatives were not interested in listening to their constituents but appeared set on rushing through testimony and proceeding rapidly to a vote.

The answer to the question “Will Colorado Dems Ram Through Dirty Dozen Business Tax Hike Bills?” is clearly ”Yes.”

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold signed up to testify against these bills on constitutional grounds - since it is clear that each bill represents “a tax policy change…  resulting in a net revenue gain” and therefore, under the Colorado Constitution, requires prior approval by a vote of the people.

Unfortunately, due to a previously scheduled engagement, I had to leave before being called to testify on any of the bills up for discussion Wednesday - and couldn’t get word on how long the hearings continued, well into the night (and early morning) and so didn’t make the long drive back to the Capitol.  However, hearings are set to resume Friday, and I’ll again make the trip to speak out in opposition to these unconstitutional tax increases - please join me if possible.

Meanwhile, some excerpts from the testimony delivered Wednesday before departing are illuminating:

An objection to the “public peace, health, & safety” tag on the “Dirty Dozen” stealth tax increases (how does a tax increase on direct mail impact public health, peace, & safety?) was justified (?) by Rep. Pommer with the simple declaration that ”we need the money - it’s a last-ditch attempt to increase revenues to address our budget shortfall.”

Responding to another amendment offered, attempting to refert the tax increases to a vote of the people (as required under the Colorado Constitution, Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights) the committee responded by denying the constitutional restrictions, declaring ”We need the money now!“

Representative Pommer (?) speaking in favor of imposing new stealth tax increase on Online Sales for out-of-state retailers: “Since we have no way of knowing how much people are buying, if the online retailer isn’t collecting the tax, we’ll require them to provide us information on individuals making online purchases - what & how much they buy.”  Um - Wow!  No privacy issues there!

The bottom line:  these stealth tax increases will not only damage businesses and harm consumers, but also violate the constitutional rights of Colorado citizens to first have a vote on taxes… By all means, oppose the legislature in taking these actions, but also remember how they were aided and abetted by an out-of-control Colorado Supreme Court ripping open a loophole in the Colorado Constitution and the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

Exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on the four ‘unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority on this year’s ballot (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey). They need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your homes and business from seizure by rapacious governments, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of rule by an oligarchy of activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Help to Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO” vote on retaining these unjust justices this November!

Just when it appeared that the attempts to spin the recent statement by Attorney General John Suthers that he would vote “NO” on retaining 3 of the 4 Colorado Supreme Court justices on the ballot this year (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) had finally run their course, yet another left-wing blog (titled, appropriately, Left Turn) attacked Suthers for having the temerity to speak his mind about our activist state Supreme Court.  The blog asserted:

Suthers’ statement aligns him with the conservative action group Clear the Bench Colorado, an organization dedicating ousting the four justices up for re-election in November. Its website describes our Supreme Court as “the most partisan in the nation” and the TABOR amendment is the second resource listed on its references page.

Although it is certainly true that “[w]hen the highest-ranking law enforcement official in the state says he thinks the highest justices in our state are not worthy of continuing in office, that’s big news,”  and we appreciate that greater attention is now being paid to the very important and serious issue of the Colorado Supreme Court judicial retention elections in November 2010, Clear The Bench Colorado did not take the AG’s statement as an endorsement (although he is certainly free to do so).

It is also telling that the blog’s listing of TABOR as “the second resource listed on its references page” is somehow meant to be a damning indictment of Clear The Bench Colorado - since TABOR is, after all, part of the Colorado Constitution that our state Supreme Court justices are sworn to uphold (which, by the way, is the FIRST reference listed).

Our response to the article (which has not yet been published on their site) follows:

The statement by Attorney General Suthers - criticizing 3 of the 4 sitting Colorado Supreme Court justices facing retention on principled grounds - brought increased attention to an extremely important issue. For too long, the statewide retention elections on our state Supreme Court justices have been a mere rubber-stamp, instead of providing the opportunity for Colorado citizens to “judge the judges” based on their adherence to the Colorado Constitution, which they are sworn to uphold.

The Colorado Constitution, by the way, is the FIRST reference listed on the Clear The Bench Colorado Resources & References page - the TABOR amendment to the Colorado Constitution is listed second. Although it is unfortunate that the Attorney General has apparently bowed to political pressure, he has been on record numerous times criticizing the decisions of the current Colorado Supreme Court majority on constitutional grounds - his recent statement that he would draw the obvious conclusion and vote against retention of anti-constitutional justices should NOT come as a great surprise.

Indeed, what IS surprising (and disappointing) is that more attorneys have not exercised their “societal duty to criticize the courts” where they are wrong - which is why it apparently takes a non-lawyer (and Soldier) to lead the fight for YOUR constitutional rights. Learn more about YOUR right to vote on these ‘unjust justices’ - and why your vote should be “NO” on retention this November - at the Clear The Bench Colorado website.

Exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on the four ‘unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority on this year’s ballot (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey). They need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your homes and business from seizure by rapacious governments, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of rule by an oligarchy of activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Help to Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO” vote on retaining these unjust justices this November!

As the National Western Stock Show drew to a close today, many of Colorado’s ranchers and farmers in attendance were unaware that one of the guests of honor (Governor Bill Ritter), along with many in the Colorado legislature, was taking pot shots at their livelihood - aided and abetted by what amounted to a declaration of “open season” by the Colorado Supreme Court.

Although a coalition of business groups opposed to being targeted for elimination of tax credits and exemptions have already expressed concern about the impact of increasing tax burdens on struggling businesses, thus far little organized opposition appears to have coalesced against two of the thirteen (13!) tax exemptions targeted for elimination that will directly impact Colorado farmers and ranchers:

• Suspending for three years a sales tax exemption for pesticides. ($2.9M)
• Suspending for three years a sales-tax exemption for animal vaccines, hormones, animal drugs, bull semen and other compounds used in agriculture. ($1.5M)

Prior to last year’s notorious “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court, however, these tax credits and exemptions could not have been targeted for elimination in the first place - since, under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), a “tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district” (whether by directly increasing taxes, or by eliminating an existing tax exemption) must first be approved by a vote of the people.

It’s no bull - you CAN exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on the four ‘unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your homes and business from seizure by rapacious governments, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of rule by an oligarchy of activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Help to Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO” vote on retaining these unjust justices this November!

A recent Denver Post article noted that leading Colorado business groups oppose the Governor’s and Legislature’s latest proposals to “balance the budget” by targeting several long-standing tax credits and exemptions for “suspension or elimination.”

The article cited a letter from a coalition of groups expressing concern that increasing the tax burden on business would delay economic recovery and ultimately be self-defeating in raising state revenues:

“We believe it would be irresponsible to reduce investments in areas that directly lead to both protecting and growing Colorado jobs,” the letter said. “At a time when these resources are declining, purposefully impacting the funding source is unwise.”

The article notably failed to mention, however, just how these tax credits and exemptions could be targeted in the first place - since, under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), a “tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district” (whether by directly increasing taxes, or by eliminating an exemption) must first be approved by a vote of the people.

For decades, that WAS the common understanding of the law - and the constraints on government spending (and taxation) served the people of Colorado well.  The activist majority on the Colorado Supreme Court broke this consensus in last year’s notorious “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” ruling by going beyond the questions at issue in the case (the property tax increase) to declare “open season” on a long list of existing tax credits and exemptions - including those whose elimination are now opposed by Colorado businesses.

Don’t allow your rights to be taken away by stealth or incremental cuts - exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on the four ‘unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your homes and business from seizure by rapacious governments, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of rule by an oligarchy of activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Help to Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO” vote on retaining these unjust justices this November!

The widely circulated alternative weekly Westword weighed in Friday with an article about the grassroots movement to hold the Colorado judiciary (particularly, the Colorado Supreme Court) accountable - and bring back balance to the bench - spearheaded by Clear The Bench Colorado.

Aside from not actually having used the word “bums” to describe the current majority on the court, the Westword article upheld the weekly’s high standard for investigative journalism and produced a very balanced and insightful look at the very important issue of the upcoming statewide retention elections for four of the current occupants of Colorado’s highest court (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey are all scheduled to be on the ballot this November).

Clear The Bench Colorado has been accused of being just another partisan shill or “judiciary haters” - by implication in the original Denver Post article on Tuesday (corrected in Friday’s edition), and outright in subsequent online attack pieces - but, as the Westword article points out,

“But Clear the Bench isn’t about Republican versus Democrat or even right versus left. It’s about holding our highest court accountable to their oath to uphold the Colorado constitution.”

Aside from a few minor semantic nitnoids (”military veteran” instead of “ex-military”, “recession” instead of “depression”), the Westword article presents an accurate picture of the purposes and motivations of Clear The Bench Colorado:

“I think our rules and our institutions are good ones, and I’m not advocating for direct election of judges,” Arnold stresses. “I think the intent behind our current system is to try to take some of the politics out of the judiciary branch, and that’s good. But it’s clearly failed to work, because we weren’t able to take the politics out. What we have is a bevy of justices on Colorado’s highest court who are substituting their personal agendas for the rule of law, and that damages all of us, irrespective to our political persuasion — and that has to stop.”

Regarding Suthers, Arnold was at the meeting where the attorney general made negative remarks about Mullarkey, Bender and Martinez, and he praises him for taking a stand.

“It’s a bold statement for the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the state to make,” he says. “And the fact that we’re talking about it shows it’s brought attention to the issue. People need to look at this seriously and do some research. This is an education campaign, because so few people are provided with any useful information on the judiciary.

“The judiciary has an inordinate amount of control over people’s lives — this court particularly,” he continues. “They’re grabbing as much power as they can. But this really is a nonpartisan issue. It’s about holding the judges accountable for their proper role as referees, not players.”

Take back control of your own life - exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on the four ‘unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your homes and business from seizure by rapacious governments, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of rule by an oligarchy of activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Help to Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO” vote on retaining these unjust justices this November!

At the close of a week dominated by news reports inserting partisan spin, additional partisan spin, misrepresentations, and ad hominem attacks, and yet more partisan spin and misrepresentations and finally a correction to the partisan spin surrounding the recent statement by Attorney General John Suthers that he would vote “NO” on retaining 3 of the 4 Colorado Supreme Court justices on the ballot (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) (whew, all that spinning is enough to make ya dizzy) it’s time for another dose of the Friday Funnies.

(Oh, sure, there was other news - something or other about an earthquake or major tectonic shift in Massachusetts - or was it Haiti? - and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on 1st Amendment rights, but this is clearly the big news in Colorado).

Apparently the Mullarkey Majority’s unconstitutional rulings have gone so far as to attract the attention of the parody/spoof site The Onion, which recently devoted their daily nationwide radio spot to ridicule the Colorado Supreme Court.

Wow - when The Onion singles you out for ridicule, you HAVE made the big time. 

Congratulations to Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and especially to Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey for making the Colorado Supreme Court a national laughingstock.

Get the last laugh on the Mullarkey Majority - Exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on the four ‘unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and - last not least - Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your homes and business from seizure by rapacious governments, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of rule by an oligarchy of activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO” vote on retaining these unjust justices this November!

Earlier this week, the Denver Post published an article (AG Suthers may not back 3 on state Supreme Court) which put a partisan spin on the recent statement by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers that he intends to vote “NO” on retaining 3 of the 4 Colorado Supreme Court justices on the ballot (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey).

Much to their credit, the Denver Post (after a call to the editors) today issued a correction to those elements of the story that implied a partisan bias to the statement by AG Suthers and the position of Clear The Bench Colorado.  That correction, on page 2A of the print edition of the Friday, January 22 Denver Post, states the following:

A story Tuesday on Page 1B about the retention of Colorado Supreme Court justices should have made clear that the group Clear The Bench Colorado is nonpartisan.  Also, the story incorrectly reported that the group believes the court makes rulings that are favorable to Democrats.  It should have said the group believes the court has made unconstitutional decisions. [Ed. - PERIOD]

Kudos to the Denver Post editors for displaying the journalistic integrity to make the necessary correction.  This action demonstrates that it IS possible for citizens to insist on fair, unbiased reporting and hold ALL institutions accountable for their actions - from the mass media all the way up to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, since (as a modern, wired kinda guy) I no longer subscribe to the print edition of the newspaper, and didn’t immediately catch the correction to the online version of the story (since added), I bought the print version two days running to track it down - and in so doing, lost $0.25 to one of the Post vending machines.  So, Denver Post - kudos for the correction - but you owe me a quarter! 

Exercise YOUR right to hold our state’s top judicial institution (Colorado Supreme Court) accountable with your “NO” vote this November on the 4 ‘unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your homes and business from seizure by rapacious governments, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering rule by an oligarchy of activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Please help support Clear The Bench Colorado with your own comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO” vote on retaining these unjust justices in November 2010!

Political enemies of Attorney General John Suthers are attempting to use his recent principled (albeit uncharacteristically bold) statement that he would vote “NO” on retaining 3 of the 4 Colorado Supreme Court justices on the ballot (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, & Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) as a political club with which to rhetorically beat him.

Some of the more radical comments have gone so far to call for his impeachment.

For expressing an opinion?  Now there’s a fine respect for constitutional free speech rights…

Calling for the Attorney General to be impeached is likewise protected free speech (if more than a little bit silly), but many of the attacks have intentionally misrepresented the statement in order to score political points.  In other words, they lied.

One such intentional misrepresentation of the statement was advanced by state Senator Morgan Carroll - a Democrat, and therefore presumably a political enemy of Republican Attorney General Suthers.  In a recent blog post entitled “The Role of the Attorney General” Carroll asserted that the AG stated that

“he would not vote for retention for any of the Colorado Supreme Court Justices who were originally appointed by a Democrat.

The proper measure for retention of a judge is their judicial performance - not political party.  The Judicial Performance Commission makes these reports available on non-partisan criteria pertaining the experience of lawyers, parties and public with the Judges.

For the states highest law enforcement officer to call for a partisan purge and partisan stacking of the bench raises serious questions.

We need to protect the importance of this office to ensure that it does not get subverted to a partisan agenda on either side…”

Carroll’s polemic intentionally misrepresents both the AG’s statement and the rationale for his position, in a blatant attempt at partisan spin.  Suthers did NOT state that he “would not vote for retention for any of the Colorado Supreme Court Justices who were originally appointed by a Democrat.”  In fact, he stated that he would vote “NO” on 3 of the 4, and “yes” on the other (ALL Democrat appointments) on the basis of his perception of the constitutionality of their rulings, NOT partisan affiliation.  Accusations of a “partisan purge and partisan stacking of the bench” are knowingly false statements - perhaps the AG has grounds for a libel suit against Sen. Carroll?

We can assert with confidence that Carroll’s statement was knowingly false not only because she cited as the source for her attack the Post article  (AG Suthers may not back 3 on state Supreme Court) which, although itself containing some spin, accurately reported the AG’s statement.

We can also assert with confidence that Carroll knows the facts because we told her so - commenting on her post (which comment she refused to publish - OK, her site, her rules - CTBC also moderates comments, but allows both positive and negative comments to be published).  We afforded her the courtesy of waiting a day to respond; instead, she published only a comment favorable to her attack (calling for the AG’s impeachment).

Our response to Senator Carroll’s possibly libelous, certainly disingenuous statement:

Senator Carroll: Clear The Bench Colorado agrees with your statement that “The proper measure for retention of a judge is their judicial performance - not political party.”  Unfortunately, the Judicial Performance Commission reviews - despite the generally good intentions of the participants in the process - have NOT provided an effective, substantive evaluation of the performance of our courts, particularly at the highest levels.

The Denver Post article has done readers a disservice by casting the retention elections in partisan terms. This is absolutely NOT a partisan issue - we can (and apparently do) agree on that.  Rather, it is a matter of the justices upholding the Constitution and the rule of law (important to ALL parties).

Also, it is inaccurate to assert that the Attorney General stated that “he would not vote for retention for any of the Colorado Supreme Court Justices who were originally appointed by a Democrat.”  In fact, he stated that he would vote “NO” on 3 out of the 4 justices appointed by Governor Romer (and would vote yes on Justice Nancy Rice). The Denver Post article said as much.

We need to protect the importance of our highest court to ensure that is does not get subverted to a partisan agenda on either side. Unfortunately, at least 3 out of the 4 justices (CTBC would argue that it’s 4 for 4) have consistently displayed in their rulings that they endorse such a role for the judiciary.  This behavior should not be tolerated from our justices - vote “NO” on their retention in November 2010. Clear The Bench, Colorado!

Clear The Bench Colorado exists not to attack our institutions, but to defend them - including the “Missouri Plan” that mixes judicial appointments with retention elections, in a well-intentioned attempt to minimize politicization of the judiciary.  Unfortunately, the politicization of the Colorado judiciary has long since been perpetrated by the unconstitutional rulings and pursuit of personal agendas by the four ’unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who are facing the voters in this November’s retention elections.

Exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on the 4 ‘unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your homes and business from seizure by rapacious governments, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering rule by an oligarchy of activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Please help support Clear The Bench Colorado with your own comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO” vote on retaining these unjust justices in November 2010!