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!

The massive expansion of Federal government power that culminated in this last weekend’s “historic” vote for what is essentially a takeover of healthcare is an unprecedented intrusion into the most personal of human rights and decisions, in the face of overwhelming popular opposition and openly engaging in the worst kind of dirty machine power politics (arm-twisting, vote-buying and out-and-out bribery that would get any regular citizen thrown in jail…)

It is increasingly clear that We The People cannot trust our elected officials (who increasingly appear to view themselves as rulers, not representatives of the citizenry) to restrain themselves from abusing the power that we have placed into their hands.

The single positive result of this repugnant display - which may not be new, but has never been so apparent - is the re-awakening of popular interest in constitutional restraints on the scope and extent of government authority.  The ongoing devolution of our constitutional republican form of government (limited powers, delegated authority based on the consent of the governed) into mob-rule democracy (constrained only by momentary and shifting balances of power) has highlighted the need for limits like never before - and is also raising awareness of the role of our 3rd branch of government (the judiciary) in either undermining or upholding those limits, which constitute the very essence of the rule of law which safeguards our rights and our liberty.

Hopefully, our nation’s constitutional reawakening will begin to deliver us from the precipice. There is no constitutional authority for two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does.

Our Constitution’s father, James Madison, explained: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined … (to be) exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.”

When government - at the behest of our elected or appointed officials - oversteps its authority, as laid out in our “rulebook” (the Constitution), it is up to We The People (who have delegated specific powers and authority, but retain all rights) to stop them.  The Courts provide the mechanism to do so without violence - and our judges, especially at the highest levels (state and Federal Supreme Court) fill the role of referee, applying the laws and ensuring that the rules in our “rulebook” are observed and obeyed.

Several state Attorneys General - including Colorado Attorney General John Suthers - have joined to file a lawsuit in response to the Federal government attempted takeover of healthcare as “an unconstitutional expansion of federal power” that violates the rights of states and individuals:

Suthers said the health care bill, by requiring all Americans to buy health insurance, violates the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Given the political and procedural difficulties inherent in repealing laws once passed - including a certain presidential veto - it may well be that the ONLY feasible “way to stop this federal overreach is through the courts.” (”Kill It In Court” editorial)

When judges fail in their duty to apply the law in accordance with the “rulebook” (our Constitution) - either ignoring existing law, or inventing new law (”legislating from the bench”) they have abandoned their proper role as referees and become players - or bystanders.  Both alternatives are dangerous - our system cannot abide judges who cannot, or will not, uphold the rule of law.

 In Colorado, we have experienced the worst examples of this - a majority of our state Supreme Court justices have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to ignore, re-write, or otherwise violate our state Constitution.  Fortunately, We The People of Colorado have the right, the opportunity, and the civic duty to hold our judiciary accountable through the process of retention elections - phrased in the form of the ballot question: “Should Justice X be retained in office?  Vote Yes or NO.”

Yes, 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 home and business from seizure by rapacious governments, 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 retaining these unjust justices on the bench this year!

Following the Monday Denver Post’s front-page, above-the-fold coverage of the “tough vote” facing Colorado Supreme Court justices in the upcoming statewide elections this November, other media outlets around the state are picking up on the issue - which may become among the hottest political topics in Colorado this year.

Shamelessly mixing metaphors, Monday’s Denver Post front-page story - coming close on the heels of a guest commentary outlining weaknesses in the current judicial performance review process in this last Saturday’s Post, an earlier article noting the Attorney General’s remarks that he advocates a “NO” vote on three of the four justices scheduled for retention, and extensive coverage across the state on the “Dirty Dozen” tax increase bills - may have been the proverbial snowball that provided just enough critical mass to unleash a veritable avalanche of coverage on the issue of statewide retention elections for the Colorado Supreme Court this year.

Naturally, the “new media” was quickest to pick up on the topic, with articles such as Ballot 2010:  Supreme Court of Colorado and these news items about judicial performance evaluations and Clear The Bench Colorado picking up steam), along with an extensive listing of the various subterfuges, evasions, and outright constitutional violations enabled by the Colorado Supreme Court’s rulings in order to raise (or “freeze” at a higher rate) taxes, increase “fees” and eliminate other limits on taxing and spending by state government and capped by coverage of Sen. Chris Romer’s statement which “lauded last year’s controversial Colorado Supreme Court ruling that said a constitutional provision requiring tax increases to be put to a popular vote did not apply” - taking a stand against the rights of citizens so that the “legislature, thanks to the Supreme Court decision, has the right to be back in charge…”

“Old media” was not far behind in picking up on and amplifying the topic, such as the commentary  in Thursday’s Fort Collins Coloradoan (”Citizens should get to vote on taxes“), decrying a “misguided state Supreme Court decision that allowed for these tax increases without a vote of the people.”

“The Colorado Supreme Court got this one wrong. This is why I offered amendments to the bills seeking to put these higher taxes to a vote of the people. Allowing the citizens of Colorado to have their constitutionally guaranteed chance to weigh in on job-killing tax hikes is the least that we should do.”

Even smaller newspapers around the state such as the Summit Daily News are weighing in on the issue (”Smaller government = more power to the people“):

Closer to home, within the state, we need to do all we can as citizens of Colorado to nip a growing misuse of power within our Supreme Court. We have the constitutional right to vote on whether we want to be taxed, in any event, for any reason. Some lawmakers in our government are presently busily taking away our right to vote on taxing. There are four unjust judges who will want to be confirmed in November who should be thrown out by a simple NO vote next to their names on the ballot. They have been increasing taxes and creating other unconstitutional atrocities against the will of the people for too long. In November say NO to The Mullarkey Bunch - Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey. There will be plenty of reminders as their unconstitutional tax increases start hitting you in the wallet. Visit the [Clear The Bench Colorado] website for the full scoop on the sweets tax and the other dirty dozen agenda-driven invasions of our rights as voters, especially when it comes to taxes. Ritter’s (he must go too) vehicle registration fees are really unconstitutional tax increases that we would not have voted for if we had been given our rights as citizens to vote on tax increases. This kind of misuse of power must be stopped and we have the power to say NO.

Thanks in part to the increased (and growing) coverage - acknowledging that there actually ARE scheduled statewide elections to allow voters to retain (or NOT retain) our Colorado Supreme Court justices in office, more and more people throughout Colorado are becoming aware that “we have the power to say NO” - and learning of the ample cause for exercising that power (indeed, that right).

Defend your right to have a vote before being taxed- and 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!

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!

Demonstrating the axiom that “if you can’t win on the facts, attack the messenger”, the left-wing attack machine is coming out in force to spin, misrepresent, and attack Clear The Bench Colorado.

After months of attempting to pretend that the important matter of judicial retention elections for the Colorado Supreme Court is a non-issue and suppressing any mention of the existence of an organized campaign to educate Colorado voters on the subject, Denver Post reporter Lynn Bartels exploited the opportunity created by the admittedly bold 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, & Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) to put a partisan spin on the AG’s statement, and misrepresented the status of Clear The Bench Colorado as a purely partisan organization.

To clarify: Clear The Bench Colorado is NOT “trying to rid the high court of most of its members” on merely partisan grounds.  Clear The Bench Colorado does not take the position “that the court is making unconstitutional decisions that favor Democrats” - Clear The Bench Colorado “maintains that the court is making unconstitutional decisions.” PERIOD.

Holding our state Supreme Court justices accountable to the people of Colorado, the Colorado Constitution (which they are sworn to uphold) and the rule of law in general is NOT a merely partisan issue.  It is NOT a matter of Democrat vs. Republican, Left vs. Right - but a matter of whether justices are fulfilling their proper function of being impartial referees instead of acting as partisan political “players.”

The Denver Post article’s spin is subtle, and the misrepresentations mild [Note: the Denver Post editors are upholding standards of journalistic ethics and integrity by issuing a correction to those portions of the article which implied a partisan bias to the Clear The Bench Colorado organization, and are to be commended] compared to the wild allegations, inaccurate attempted guilt-by-associations, and childishly ad hominem attacks (calling Clear The Bench Colorado “nutters” and “fringy perennials” is so mature and persuasive) perpetrated by the rabidly left-wing Colorado Pols blog.

The Colorado Pols article goes on to characterize Clear The Bench Colorado as “judiciary haters scorned by the legal world” - lifting a page from Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” (13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it), attacking the messenger while avoiding the merits of the message.

The comments by the radical fringe Pols subscribers descend into yet greater depths, starting with an outright lie (”This is bullshit Suthers clearly did not say he won’t support 3 of the justices - they’re putting words in his mouth. People like this give blogging a bad name - for shame”) [Ed.: Sorry, "DavidThi808", that's EXACTLY what he said - your lie gives blogging a bad name], projecting their own psychological issues (”The abject hate directed at most people who are not like them is huge”) and spewing  a scattering of insult, invective, and name-calling (”rabid ideology”, “if, somehow, they got their lame wish now, their juvenile actions won’t be forgotten”, “these creeps go after the judges”, etc.) - truly a fascinating glimpse into the “progressive” mindset.

The Colorado Pols “Fringy Perennials” piece is ably deconstructed in an article by Jimmy Sengenberger of SengCenter Radio fame on the Peoples Press Collective site; some excerpts:

In what one could claim is a sign of fear over the significant headway CTBC is making across Colorado, the…  folks at Colorado Pols left no doubt as to their irritation with the organization…

Never has there been a campaign of this kind run in the history of the state. … In fact, there has never been a campaign to convince Coloradans to actually “vote the rascals out.”  Prior to CTBC, all Coloradans had available as a resource were the recommendations of the State Commission on Judicial Performance that are found in the Blue Book every election. …

The reality is that this is a grassroots effort led by the people, not “Republican elitists” or “Big Elves” on loan from Santa’s Political Workshop of Perennially Fringy Politics, nor is it run by “judiciary haters,” but rather genuinely concerned citizens - citizens worried that their rights under the Colorado Constitution are being trampled upon by an overzealous Supreme Court.  And the number of citizens from throughout the state jumping on board the CTBC train are growing. …

Never before has there been so much stinky fodder on the matter, from the blatantly unconstitutional tax increases stemming from the railroading of TABOR to their rulings that the Supreme Court, not the legislature, is supposed to be the guide for properly allocating education funding and managing redistricting, along with a growing resume of constitutional violations.  The actions of the Mullarky Majority of the Supreme Court, in case after case after case, have been indefensible and in clear violation of the Constitution, if not outright disdain or ignorance of it. …

Judicial activists, liberal bloggers, and Democratic operatives can cry “fringy” and “extremist” all they want on the “Big Elves,” but the reality is that CTBC is a legitimate grassroots effort with a basis in the documented actions of the Supreme Court itself.  Nothing “fringy” or “hateful” about it, though I guess if you believe in constitutional government, maybe you are a little “perennial” in your desire to protect your constitutional rights.  But is that really such a bad thing?

Couldn’t have said it better myself, Jimmy.

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!