Mark Hillman’s Capitol Review blog/newsletter today joins the rising chorus of commentators speaking out against the Mullarkey Majority’s most recent blatantly unconstitutional ruling - and piling-on power grab - in Lobato v. State of Colorado last Monday.

In an audacious power grab, the Colorado Supreme Court recently embraced, by a 4-3 decision, a judicial doctrine that would relegate the other two branches of government - and the voters - to a perfunctory role.

The high court’s activist majority used Lobato vs. State not only to intrude on the legislature’s constitutional authority to determine funding for public schools; it also self-servingly suggested that no policy decision is off-limits to judicial review. [emphasis added]

So much for separation of powers, consent of the governed, or checks and balances.  In fact, the Lobato ruling leads to the obvious question:  “What’s left to check or balance the court?”

Indeed.  As oft noted previously in this space, the Mullarkey Majority recognizes no constitutional constraints, no limits to its untrammeled authority, no checks or balances to its power - in their view, the law means “just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”  This “Through the Looking Glass” worldview has precious little in common with the justice’s sworn duty to uphold the rule of law - and support (not dismantle) the Constitution.

Hillman continues: “the supreme court’s majority selectively quoted and distorted the law and its own precedent.  Even more significantly, the majority argued that courts can render judgments even when the law is silent, provides no quantifiable standard or confers specific authority to another branch of government.”

The Mullarkey Majority’s specious arguments and semantic shenanigans are belied by the clear wording and explicit direction of the Constitution itself, as noted in the dissenting opinion, which “argues that, when the constitution says “the general assembly shall . . . provide for . . . a thorough and uniform system of free public schools,” authority is clearly conferred upon the legislature and not the courts.”

 Hillman closes with a summary of what makes a good judge - as contrasted with the unjust justices of the Mullarkey Court - and notes the remedy available to “We The People” as citizens of Colorado:

That’s the important distinction between originalist judges - who believe their job is to apply the laws as written and to seek guidance from those who authored them - and activist judges - who believe their job is to twist the law to suit their own political agenda and to consult unelected, unaccountable academics for inspiration.

Ironically Bender, Mullarkey and Martinez stand for retention in November 2010.  Perhaps then voters will exercise their own “checks and balances.”

Be a part of the “checks and balances” envisioned in our constitutional form of government. Defend YOUR Constitution, and exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on retaining the four 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, not rule by 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 in 2010!