Clear The Bench Colorado has noted for several months now an apparent bias in the Denver Post’s coverage (more accurately, lack of coverage) of the very newsworthy fact that for the first time in over forty (40!) years (since the system of judicial retention - i.e. yes/no - elections in Colorado replaced contested - i.e. competitive - elections for judges) the citizens of Colorado are being provided with substantive information on the performance in office of our Colorado Supreme Court justices - and reasons why voters should strongly consider their removal from office (”vote NO“) this November.

Although the Denver Post did note (accurately) back in February that the Colorado Supreme Court justices (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and - at the time - Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) subject to being held accountable in November faced a “tough vote” in retention elections, since that time - despite the growing momentum of the judicial accountability movement spearheaded by Clear The Bench Colorado - there’s been scarcely a word in print on the subject.  For that matter, there’s been scarce mention of the role of the Colorado Supreme Court in aiding and abetting several highly unpopular (and unconstitutional) legislative and executive actions undermining the constitutional rights of Colorado citizens.

A recent article (”Supreme Court’s temporary digs draw a dart from court critics“) notes that the Post’s coverage of the Colorado Supreme Court (or, more to the point, lack of coverage of any criticism of the court) might be influenced by the fact that the Post is being paid $1.6 million per year as the court’s current landlord:

Might the Colorado Supreme Court wind up with some pretty good press now now that it has set up shop in the Denver Newspaper Agency building, home of the Denver Post, at Colfax and Broadway?

At the end of April, both the Supreme Court and the Colorado Court of Appeals moved from their former digs at the state justice center, which is slated to be demolished this year to make way for a new judicial complex. They now occupy two full floors of the DNA building, and hold court on the first floor, right next to Heidi’s Deli.

Of course, the Post’s editors vociferously deny any conflict of interest - editor Greg Moore said it was “ridiculous” to think that the Post would allow $1.6 million a year to influence their coverage, and courts spokesman Rob McCallum asserted that “the court hasn’t gotten any kind of break from the Post.”

Perhaps.  On the other hand, the Post’s (lack of) coverage of the Colorado Supreme Court (and absent coverage of the growing momentum of this year’s judicial accountability movement) differs remarkably from that of other media (print or broadcast) around the state.

For instance, many media outlets around the state noted the role of the Colorado Supreme Court in enabling the “Dirty Dozen” tax increases - from the Fort Collins Coloradoan up north (”Citizens should get to vote on taxes“) to the Pueblo Chieftain in the south (“Clear the Bench” editorial published March 1st), in the mountains (Summit Daily News - ”Smaller government = more power to the people“) and the southwestern corner of the state (Durango Herald, “State lawmakers battle it out over tax breaks“) - but you couldn’t “read it in the Post.”

Interested in how the Colorado Supreme Court will influence how you are represented in Congress and the General Assembly by shaping legislative districts?  How about the legislature’s move to abdicate their constitutional responsibility and give even more power to the courts with the “Mary-mandering” bill at the close of the session?  You could get informed by reading other newspapers around the state (“Chief justice wields clout over reapportionment”), listening to radio (here, for example), and perusing coverage by a host of other media outlets - but again, hardly a peep from the Post.

Even the Post’s coverage of the recent announcement by Chief Justice Mullarkey that she would retire rather than be held accountable by Colorado voters - in which a majority of media noted that her decision to retire was likely influenced, if not precipitated outright, by the existence of the judicial accountability movement spearheaded by Clear The Bench Colorado - only contained an oblique reference to the existence of “a vigorous campaign by critics to persuade voters not to retain her on the court in November.”  No further information or name of the organization provided, of course (what am I, Voldemort?)

Most recently, the Post published a defense of Chief Justice Mullarkey (and incumbent judges in general) against any criticism or independent review of their performance outside of the lawyer-and-political-insider-dominated Judicial Performance Review Commission (“Criticism of retiring Judge (sic) Mullarkey unfair”).  Attacking the very idea that the judiciary - particularly Colorado Supreme Court justices - may be held accountable by the citizens on who’s behalf they supposedly hold office, the guest commentary published by the Post runs contrary to the spirit of transparency and accountability at the core of our system of democratic, representative government.  Despite a strong response from a number of comments and letters to the editor in opposition to the thrust of the piece, the Post had rebuffed our request for a rebuttal article (indeed, not responding at all to several communications).

Until today - when, following publication of the article raising the issue of the appearance of a conflict of interest, the Post informed me that they would be publishing my (short and limited in space) response (originally submitted over two weeks ago) this coming Friday.

Coincidence?

We The People can (indeed, as citizens, we must) hold our public officials - both elected and appointed - accountable.  Be a citizen, not a subject - get informed, then exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority”- (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice - recently minus 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 home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions - and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold discusses the impact of Colorado Supreme Court rulings leading to a massive expansion of government power (at the expense of YOUR constitutional rights) and vastly increased taxation (such as the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase, the “Dirty Dozen” tax increases and of course the Colorado Car Tax (er, “vehicle registration fee”) increase, along with the dominant role of the Colorado Supreme Court in determining the boundaries of our legislative districts (at both the State and Federal level - deciding how YOU will be represented in Congress and in the Colorado Legislature), the issue of judicial retention elections for the Colorado Supreme Court, and the recent announcement by Chief Justice Mullarkey that she would retire rather than be held accountable by Colorado voters - at the Greeley Republican breakfast Wednesday starting at 6:30AM.

The Colorado Supreme Court - and particularly, the Chief Justice - exercises enormous power (”clout”) over the lives of Colorado citizens.  The current majority has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not exercise this power with restraint or consideration for your constitutional rights - ruling consistently against individual protections and in favor of expanded government power.  Upholding tax increases (such as the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase, or the “Dirty Dozen” new tax laws) imposed without the required vote of the people, enabling taxes to be collected under the guise of “fees” (such as the Colorado Car Tax), expanding eminent domain abuse to seize people’s property, and grabbing the (legislative) power to draw up voting districts (aided by the recent “Mary-mandering” bill) - this court is acting like rulers, with you as the subjects; re-writing the laws, instead of upholding them.

Be a citizen, not a subject - get informed, then exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “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 home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions - and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

“If you can’t argue the message, attack the messenger…” (Anonymous)

Political allies of the incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices subject to a (non) retention vote this November are increasingly showing frustration at their inability to counter the message (and growing momentum) of the judicial accountability movement spearheaded by Clear The Bench Colorado.  Therefore - in the fashion used since time immemorial by those lacking a good counterargument  - they’ve resorted to attacking the messenger.

Most recently, the Denver Post facilitated an attack on the concept of citizen-led judicial accountability by publishing a guest commentary (written by a career politician) called “Criticism of retiring Judge (sic) Mullarkey unfair” which characterized any critique or assessment of judicial performance outside of the lawyer-and-political-insider-dominated Judicial Performance Review Commission as “attacks” and “over-the-top charges.”   Fortunately - although the Post has refused to publish a rebuttal piece submitted by Clear The Bench Colorado (possibly they remain committed to defending the interests of their largest renters - yes, the Colorado Supreme Court rents office space from the Denver Post - over the public interest in fairly reporting the news) numerous citizens lambasted this view as antithetical to the ideals of our democratic republic, where citizens reign supreme (not politicians) and have the right to criticize.

An even more direct attack on Clear The Bench Colorado (and the notion of citizens holding our state Supreme Court justices accountable to their oath to uphold the Constitution) was launched last month (May 5th) when the notoriously mis-named “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) filed a spurious “campaign finance complaint” in a politically motivated and baseless attack.  CEW’s attack - particularly since they obviously spent more time in crafting the press release than in researching and drafting the complaint - showcased the hollowness and desperation of the incumbent justices’ political allies.

CEW’s attack against Clear The Bench Colorado fits an ongoing pattern of unsuccessful, politically motivated “ethics” complaints designed to distract, disorient, and sling mud in the (vain) hope that something might stick.  Ultimately, they don’t care if they win or lose the case (their lopsided loss-win ratio bears this out), since their priorities are (1) smear, (2) frame the media debate and gain attention, (3) divert resources & attention, (4) intimidate, and (5) maybe (if they get lucky) occasionally win a case.  As many publications noted at the time, CEW’s attack was just another cheap political stunt.  Even the Secretary of State’s office called CEW Director Toro’s statements “disingenuous” (which is a polite way of saying, ‘lying through your teeth’).

Now - after several underhanded attempts by CEW to badger and harass Clear The Bench Colorado (although I had to laugh when being “served”) and a last-minute attempt to sneak in a motion for summary judgement to categorize CTBC as a “political” committee, the CEW complaint received a strong rebuttal in a cross motion for summary judgement & request for attorney’s fees filed Monday afternoon.

Based on the facts (undisputed by both parties), CEW’s complaint “could not prevail” as a matter of law.  CTBC registered in a timely manner, fulfilling all reporting requirements, in accordance with the Secretary of State’s guidance and established campaign finance regulations and procedures.  As noted in the rebuttal,

CEW self-consciously chose to file a complaint againstClear the Bench without alleging all the elements necessary to establish that CEW was a political committee. (As argued below, CEW’s approach is grounds for sanctions.)

Additionally, the guidance of the Secretary of State’s office was completely clear:

Here, the Secretary knew the facts underlying Clear the Bench’s registration… it knew Clear the Bench’s purpose included advocating against the retention of justices. Furthermore, the Secretary not onlyintended that Clear the Bench act in a certain manner, but it also required Clear the Bench to act in a certain manner. Specifically, the Secretary prohibited Clear the Bench from registering as a political committee and notified Clear the Bench to register as an issue committee.

As previously noted, “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) was aware of the facts, but chose to proceed with an attack anyway - just the kind of unethical, underhanded behavior that gives lawyers a bad name.  This time, it may end up being an expensive mistake for CEW:

CEW is liable for attorney fees, because the complaint is frivolous, groundless, and vexatious. Under C.R.S. § 1-45-111.5, an administrative court may impose sanctions for a frivolous, groundless, or vexatious claim. “A claim is frivolous if the proponent can present no rational argument based on the evidence or law in support of the claim. A claim is groundless if the allegations in the complaint, while sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, are not supported by any credible evidence.” Finally, a vexatious claim “is one brought or maintained in bad faith to annoy or harass, and may include conduct that is arbitrary, abusive, stubbornly litigious, or disrespectful of truth.”

Granted, the bar is set high for recovery of attorney’s fees - in this case, CEW’s behavior was so low that it’s a realistic (even likely) prospect.

It should come as no surprise that the defenders of those on the courts abusing the constitutional rights of Colorado citizens would themselves attempt to abuse the courts to achieve their goals.  What may have come as a surprise to CEW is that this time, the good guys fought back - effectively.

Stand with Clear The Bench Colorado in defense of your constitutional rights - hold the rulers of our highest courts accountable to the law.  Exercise your right to vote “NO” on the 4 (er, now 3) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “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 home or business from against eminent domain abuse, your right to fair representation in government, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.” Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions - and exercise your right to vote “NO” on retaining these unjust justices on the bench for another 10-year term!

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold discusses the impact of Colorado Supreme Court rulings leading to a massive expansion of government power (at the expense of YOUR constitutional rights) and vastly increased taxation (such as the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase, the “Dirty Dozen” tax increases and of course the Colorado Car Tax (er, “vehicle registration fee”) increase, along with the dominant role of the Colorado Supreme Court in determining the boundaries of our legislative districts (at both the State and Federal level) - deciding how YOU will be represented in Congress and in the Colorado Legislature - on 101.5 FM The Truth (Denver’s FM Talk Radio) Monday night in the 9PM hour.

The Colorado Supreme Court - and particularly, the Chief Justice - exercises enormous power (”clout”) over the lives of Colorado citizens.  The current majority has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not exercise this power with restraint or consideration for your constitutional rights - ruling consistently against individual protections and in favor of expanded government power.  Upholding tax increases (such as the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase, or the “Dirty Dozen” new tax laws) imposed without the required vote of the people, enabling taxes to be collected under the guise of “fees” (such as the Colorado Car Tax), expanding eminent domain abuse to seize people’s property, and grabbing the (legislative) power to draw up voting districts (aided by the recent “Mary-mandering” bill) - this court is acting like rulers, with you as the subjects; re-writing the laws, instead of upholding them.

Be a citizen, not a subject - get informed, then exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “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 home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions - and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold discusses the impact of Colorado Supreme Court rulings leading to a massive expansion of government power (at the expense of YOUR constitutional rights) and vastly increased taxation (such as the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase, the “Dirty Dozen” tax increases and of course the Colorado Car Tax (er, “vehicle registration fee”) increase, along with the dominant role of the Colorado Supreme Court in determining the boundaries of our legislative districts (at both the State and Federal level) - deciding how YOU will be represented in Congress and in the Colorado Legislature - at the Douglas County Young Republicans meeting Monday starting 6:30PM.

The Colorado Supreme Court - and particularly, the Chief Justice - exercises enormous power (”clout”) over the lives of Colorado citizens.  The current majority has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not exercise this power with restraint or consideration for your constitutional rights - ruling consistently against individual protections and in favor of expanded government power.  Upholding tax increases (such as the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase, or the “Dirty Dozen” new tax laws) imposed without the required vote of the people, enabling taxes to be collected under the guise of “fees” (such as the Colorado Car Tax), expanding eminent domain abuse to seize people’s property, and grabbing the (legislative) power to draw up voting districts (aided by the recent “Mary-mandering” bill) - this court is acting like rulers, with you as the subjects; re-writing the laws, instead of upholding them.

Be a citizen, not a subject - get informed, then exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “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 home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions - and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Clear The Bench Colorado has tracked the threat posed by the Colorado Supreme Court to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms in Colorado for some time (including attempts to levy what amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax on firearms sales and permits, and of course the CU Regents ban on responsible and licensed concealed-carry and the more recent CSU campus ban on concealed carry, along with debates and recent developments in both cases).  Today, in another momentous development in Colorado Politics, the CU Board of Regents voted to appeal the ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals which in April struck down the University of Colorado ban on licensed permit-holders carrying firearms on campus (Court tosses CU gun ban).

As Clear The Bench Colorado noted at the time, the Court of Appeals ruling was both legally sound and clear in its rejection of the CU Board’s assertion of extra-constitutional authority:

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the University of Colorado has no authority to bar students or visitors from lawfully carrying guns on campus.

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruling in the case highlights the critical importance of judges who rule in accordance with the law (especially the Constitution, which exists to protect the rights of individuals and limit the power of government) and underlines the fact that Colorado does have many such judges at various levels (including Judge Christine Habas, who ruled - correctly - that the Mill Levy Tax Freeze” was unconstitutional before being overturned by the Mullarkey Majority).  Unfortunately, we just don’t have enough of them on the Colorado Supreme Court.

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruling in the case also substantiated our assertion that the CU and CSU bans violate “the clear letter and intent of the statute authorizing statewide standards and universal application for concealed-carry permits”

18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions.

(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section.

The Colorado Court of Appeals could not have been more clear in upholding that view, and went further in upholding the constitutional right of Colorado citizens to bear arms in self-defense:

Because the statute expressly applies to “all areas of the state,” we conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under the CCA. We further conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under Colorado Constitution article II, section 13, which affords individuals the right to bear arms in self-defense.

The lawlessness of the CU Board members voting with the majority - voting to violate the clear letter of the law, and voting to violate the legal rights of its students along with the rights of any citizens who might find themselves within the (open to the public) campus area - is betting on a similar lawlessness on the Colorado Supreme Court, which has consistently demonstrated a contempt for the clear letter of the Colorado Constitution and for the rule of law, generally.  The case serves as a powerful reminder that our constitutional and statutory rights are under constant threat of being “interpreted” out of existence by the current majority on the Colorado Supreme Court.

Stick to your guns - Defend YOUR constitutional and statutory rights, and exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on retaining the 4 (er, 3 remaining) ‘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 of self-defense, your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business from government abuse of eminent domain powers, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, not rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO” vote in November 2010 to keep these unjust justices from returning for another 10-year term!

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold discusses the impact of Colorado Supreme Court rulings leading to a massive expansion of government power (at the expense of YOUR constitutional rights) and vastly increased taxation (such as the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase, the “Dirty Dozen” tax increases and of course the Colorado Car Tax (er, “vehicle registration fee”) increase, along with the dominant role of the Colorado Supreme Court in determining the boundaries of our legislative districts (at both the State and Federal level) - deciding how YOU will be represented in Congress and in the Colorado Legislature - at the Mountain Republican Women’s Club dinner Thursday starting at 6PM.

The Colorado Supreme Court - and particularly, the Chief Justice - exercises enormous power (”clout”) over the lives of Colorado citizens.  The current majority has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not exercise this power with restraint or consideration for your constitutional rights - ruling consistently against individual protections and in favor of expanded government power.  Upholding tax increases (such as the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase, or the “Dirty Dozen” new tax laws) imposed without the required vote of the people, enabling taxes to be collected under the guise of “fees” (such as the Colorado Car Tax), expanding eminent domain abuse to seize people’s property, and grabbing the (legislative) power to draw up voting districts (aided by the recent “Mary-mandering” bill) - this court is acting like rulers, with you as the subjects; re-writing the laws, instead of upholding them.

Be a citizen, not a subject - get informed, then exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “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 home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions - and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Recently, defenders of the judicial status quo weighed in with a guest commentary in the Denver Post promoting the retention of judicial incumbents generally (and defending Chief Justice Mullarkey specifically).  The piece (written by a career politician) called “Criticism of retiring Judge (sic) Mullarkey unfair” and attempted to characterize any critique or assessment of judicial performance outside of the lawyer-and-political-insider-dominated Judicial Performance Review Commission as “attacks” and “over-the-top charges.”  (So much for the 1st Amendment and accountability to the citizens, eh?)

Informed voters discount the Judicial Performance Review Commission reports not only for their pro-incumbent bias (recommending for retention about 99% of the time) but also for the lack of substantive information provided on which to base an informed decision - as noted in an earlier Denver Post Guest Commentary article (published February 13th) entitled “Evaluating the Performance of Justices.”

The Denver Post has yet to publish our response (Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold submitted a rebuttal article for the “My Turn” section, since our organization was indirectly attacked in the piece) - possibly they remain committed to defending the interests of their largest renters (yes, the Colorado Supreme Court rents office space from the Denver Post - currently holding court in the Denver Post building).  Conflict of interest?  No, no conflict of interest there…

However, there has been a robust discussion and debate in the online comments section for the article, as well as an informative letter to the editor (published, unfortunately, only in the online edition).  Apparently, citizens of Colorado are both better informed and more willing to engage on this topic than the Post editors give credit.

Some of the comments:

Why is it wrong to criticize judges like Mullarkey who helped Ritter to raise our property taxes and helped subvert the Tabor Bill? Since the voters of Colorado didn’t trust the politicians and their spending and we didn’t want them raising our taxes without voter approval. Just think of all the new fees that the Dems pushed through in the last year from the new vehicle fees and all of the other 30 fees that they approved in the dead of night this past year. The voters were right no to trust the big spending politicians and judges like Mullarkey made things worse. So it is to bad that she retired before we could fire her and the other judges who legislated against the will of the voters… [by: all American]

Democrats have had Tabor in their sights for many years. When given the opportunity to decide whether the will of the people should trump the will of politicians, liberal Supreme Court judges voted to uphold the obvious wordplay and stretch of legal definition that Ritter designed to undermine the basic tenants of Tabor. And our property taxes were increased, which was the intent to fashion an end-run around our Constitutional mandate to put all tax increases to a vote.

I think that is an eminently fair criticism of the political-tinged partisan decision made by Mullarky and Co. Their judicial neutrality was abandoned for a reactionary treatment of a constitutional amendment that they as tax and spend liberals did not like. [by: COindy]

In my experience, the Judicial Performance Commissions are an expensive fraud on the public.

Members are indoctrinated by the administrator that ANY citizen making a complaint against a judge is a “loser who is trying to retry his case” I had a civil case that took eight years to get to trial because the judge wouldn’t make timely decisions, defined in state law as no more than 90 days after the motion. One decision took 27 months and another two years. Court records were quite plain on the issue, and I provided them to the commission to prove what was happening.

The commissioners were so prejudiced against the public that one commissioner later wrote me an email stating that I was a loser and he hoped I could put the issue behind me. He hadn’t examined the documents closely enough to discover that my lawsuit hadn’t come to trial yet and that I was just trying to force that to happen. I eventually won my lawsuit, so I wasn’t even a loser but the judges delay cost me tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees that I didn’t recover.

The judicial performance law itself helps judges coerce favorable outcomes from commissions by making it unlawful for a commissioner who votes against a judge and later finds himself in that judges court to request a change of judge. Let me say that again: Commissioners who try to protect the public interest with an honest appraisal put themselves in future peril by law that creates the commissions.

It is also against state law for commissioners to individually or as a group report judicial misconduct they may discover in the course of their duties.

Citizens can best protest this kind of fraud by voting against the retention of EVERY judge, and certainly against EVERY Supreme Court justice. Blue book recommendations are NOT worth the paper they are printed on.  [by: A Watcher]

… and several others in the same vein.  The Citizen response to a career politician’s attempt to defend a process (Judicial Performance “Review” Commissions) meant to minimize transparency, accountability, and citizen oversight and involvement is highly encouraging - not just for the particulars of the judicial retention elections, but for the status of representative, democratic government in general.

Finally, the Denver Post did publish (albeit only online) the following letter to the editor on June 18th (”Judging Colorado’s Supreme Court justices“) :

Re: “Criticism of retiring Judge Mullarkey unfair,” June 11 Susan Thornton column.

Susan Thornton’s column criticizing those who would criticize Colorado Supreme Court justices misses the mark. Taking issue with Supreme Court decisions that are contrary to the language of the Colorado Constitution is not ideological.

While telling us how local judicial district performance commissions operate, Thornton misses the point of the increasing criticism of certain supreme court justices. For one thing, the job performance evaluation for Supreme Court justices is different from analyzing the performance of trial judges. When it comes to giving a Supreme Court justice another 10-year term, scrutiny of the important decisions that the justice makes is a responsibility of the voters. Because Supreme Court decisions more and more impact all Colorado citizens, both young and old, careful consideration of a Supreme Court justice’s decisions far outweighs whether the particular justice is a member in good standing of the Possum Lodge or whether the justice raises money for UNICEF.

In a U.S. Supreme Court case - Bridges vs. California, 314 U.S. 252, 290 n. 5 (1941) - Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote that “judges must be kept mindful of their limitations and of their ultimate public responsibility by a vigorous stream of criticism expressed with candor however blunt.”

So in deciding this November whether to retain Supreme Court justices for another 10 years, voters will need reliable information and constructive criticism of the justices’ decisions on school funding, eminent domain, unapproved tax increases, redistricting, and other issues of statewide concern. If the voters do not receive critical and “vigorous” information about Supreme Court decisions, they will be unable to carry out their responsibility to assess the job performance of the Colorado Supreme Court justices who want their votes.

Bill Banta, Greenwood Village

This letter was published online only. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

That letter even received a comment:

The Absolute RIGHT of “We The People” to CRITICIZE…ANY….member of Our Government….or ANY Policy, Law, or Viewpoint they may render…..is what makes the United States the United States…..and NOT North Korea, Iran, or any other country.

At least….”We The People” in the US….have moved AWAY from the ancient idea that our “leaders” are ‘gods’ the way the pharoahs and the ceasars were once considered……and the way “The Great Leader” of North Korea is still considered.

A Supreme Court Justice is just a ‘person’ like any one of us are ‘pesons’….people who are human, prone to make a mistake here and there, and it is that FACT that they CAN be CRITICIZED that helps to keep them….honest, ethical, and moral.

There is NOTHING that leads to Absolute Corruption FASTER….than NOT being able to CRITICIZE those who deserve to be criticized.  [by: Robtf777]

Clear The Bench Colorado obviously agrees - Citizens do have the right (and, we would argue, the duty and the responsibility) to criticize our elected (and appointed) officials, to hold them accountable.   The attitude expressed in Thornton’s column - attempting to de-legitimize criticism of public officials - is the attitude of a ruler toward a subject, not a citizen.

Be a citizen, not a subject - get informed, then exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “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 home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions - and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

The resurgence of “We The People” in the form of local citizens banding together in grassroots civic action organizations to defend our constitutional rights is THE continuing political story of the year 2010 in America and is profoundly affecting Colorado Politics in this year and beyond…

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold is both proud and humbled to have been invited as a guest speaker to several such groups over the last several months - beginning with the massive (7000+) crowd at the first Tax Day Tea Party rally at the Denver Capitol and continuing through several events throughout the Spring (examples here, and here), Summer (examples here, here, and here) Fall (examples here, here, here, here, and here) and Winter (examples here, and here) of 2009 - we’re back for more in 2010, most prominently at the Tax Day Tea Party rallies on April 15th.

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold discusses the impact of Colorado Supreme Court rulings leading to a massive expansion of government power (at the expense of YOUR constitutional rights) and vastly increased taxation (such as the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase, the “Dirty Dozen” tax increases and of course the Colorado Car Tax (er, “vehicle registration fee”) increase, along with the dominant role of the Colorado Supreme Court in determining the boundaries of our legislative districts (at both the State and Federal level) - deciding how YOU will be represented in Congress and in the Colorado Legislature - at the Aurora Tea Party Patriots meeting this evening starting at 6:30PM.

The Colorado Supreme Court - and particularly, the Chief Justice - exercises enormous power (”clout”) over the lives of Colorado citizens.  The current majority has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not exercise this power with restraint or consideration for your constitutional rights - ruling consistently against individual protections and in favor of expanded government power.  Upholding tax increases (such as the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase, or the “Dirty Dozen” new tax laws) imposed without the required vote of the people, enabling taxes to be collected under the guise of “fees” (such as the Colorado Car Tax), expanding eminent domain abuse to seize people’s property, and grabbing the (legislative) power to draw up voting districts (aided by the recent “Mary-mandering” bill) - this court is acting like rulers, with you as the subjects; re-writing the laws, instead of upholding them.

Be a citizen, not a subject - exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “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 home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions - and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Political enemies of Attorney General John Suthers are STILL attempting to use his 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 - continuing to propagate knowingly false statements accusing him of partisan bias in his pronouncement.

State Senator Morgan Carroll - appearing at a nonpartisan gathering of politically-interested people at Liberty On The Rocks (Red Rocks) - stuck by her earlier accusation against Attorney General John Suthers of “partisan bias” and her call for his impeachment when challenged to defend her statement.

While Senator Carroll is certainly entitled to her own opinion, she does NOT get to pick her own facts - her attack on the Attorney General intentionally misrepresented his statement in order to score political points.  In other words - as previously noted in this space -  she lied.

Senator Morgan Carroll - a Democrat, and therefore presumably a political enemy of Republican Attorney General Suthers - asserted in a blog post entitled “The Role of the Attorney General” that the AG stated

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 4 are Democrat appointments) on the basis of his perception of the constitutionality of their rulings, NOT their 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) and now in person.

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 (now, three) ’unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice - Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey quit rather than be held accountable) 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 being seized through eminent domain abuse, 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!