Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold made a special studio appearance on Thursday’s 850 KOA Mike Rosen show (hosted by Tom Tancredo).

Listen in to learn more about the grassroots movement to restore accountability to Colorado’s judiciary.  The four unjust justices of the Mullarkey Majority (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) need YOUR approval to continue taking away your 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 voice (Sound Off!), your contributions, and “NO” vote on retaining unjust justices in 2010!

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold appeared on the Independent Thinking television program with host Jon Caldara and fellow guest John Andrews for a discussion on ”Voter Approval of Supreme Court Justices” at 8:30 last Friday on KBDI Channel 12 - a CTBC broadcast television debut.  The show will be re-broadcast Tuesday, August 4th at 5PM.

For the impatient or more techno-savvy among you, the show can also be viewed (in 3 segments) on YouTube:

Watch the show Tuesday at 5PM on KBDI Channel 12, or view the video clips, to  learn more about the grassroots movement to restore accountability to Colorado’s judiciary.  Ditch the Mullarkey Majority (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) by voting “NO” to retain these unjust justices in 2010! Let’s Clear The Bench, Colorado!

After searching far and wide for recent examples of humorous content relevant to our Supreme Court (and believe me, after a long and busy week, I needed the laugh), I came up empty.  Apparently, it’s been a very unfunny week for the Colorado judiciary.

Looks like we’ll have to generate our own humorous content for the site - and yes, we do have some great projects in the works, but they’re not quite ready for prime time.  Check back next week, though…

Meanwhile, courtesy of designer/illustrator/cartoonist Benjamin Hummel, we reprise his depiction of the straw that broke TABOR’s back: the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” ruling of 16 March 2009:

The infamous “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” ruling did more than just (unconstitutionally) raise property taxes; it also opened the door to millions in new taxes, some of which were proposed literally hours after the legislature was briefed on the ruling before passing into law in the last legislative session.

Added to the stealthily-issued (the day before national elections) ruling upholding an outrageously expansive definition of “fees” (replacing “taxes”) and the later unconstitutional repeal of the Arveschoug-Bird spending limit, and TABOR has indeed been “bumped off the cliff” by the Mullarkey Court.

Wow - I guess it has been a pretty unfunny week after all.

Don’t let the Mullarkey Court throw grandma (er, TABOR) off the cliff.  Ditch the Mullarkey Majority (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) by voting “NO” to retain these unjust justices in 2010!  Let’s Clear The Bench, Colorado!

Come back every week for another edition of the Friday Funnies at Clear The Bench Colorado!

Reprising Thursday’s broadcast “Under The Dome” special report, Clear The Bench Colorado director Matt Arnold appears on Backbone Radio (710 KNUS in Denver, 1460 KZNT in Colorado Springs, and on http://www.710knus.com) at 7PM Sunday evening.  From the original station promo:

“A campaign is underway to vote down Colorado’s chief justice and three of her colleagues on the 2010 ballot.  What are the pros and cons? Get the story from former Senate President John Andrews and his guest experts on “Under the Dome,” a NewsTalk 710 special report.”

If you missed Thursday’s presentation (or just want to hear it again), tune in Sunday evening at 7PM to hear Matt present the case for restoring accountability to our judiciary in Colorado.

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 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.”

Let’s Clear The Bench, Colorado!  Vote “NO” on unjust justices in 2010!

Following “three days of grueling questioning” (including such hard-hitting gems as “what was the publisher of  the encyclopedias your working-class mother bought you because she so strongly believed in the value of education” and “Perry Mason won all but one of his cases - what was the one case that he lost?“), Sonia Sotomayor is set to be confirmed as the next U.S. Supreme Court justice - the most rapid (rushed?) confirmation of any Supreme Court justice in U.S. history (beating out current justice and Clinton nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg by a few days, depending on when the vote is actually held).

It was apparent even before the hearings began that the fix was in (Feinstein: Sotomayor a sure thing). Given the overwhelming numerical advantage of Democrats in the Senate, and hard behind-the-scenes arm-twisting to ensure party discipline, there was little that either “blue-dog” Democrats or Republicans could do to block confirmation.  However, our Senators missed a golden opportunity to stand on principle and make the case for the rule of law, and the importance of confirming (or retaining) justices on that basis.

Instead, the discussion revolved around racial politics (”underlying politics are dicey for Republicans“), personality (She is an amazing, warm and intelligent woman“) and her “inspirational life story:”

Now, I’m as much a fan of “inspirational life stories” as the next guy; and when I have a daughter, I hope she’s just like Gracie (the cute, wide-eyed, precocious kid in the ”Baldo” comic strip, above) - especially since if I have a son, he’s MUCH more likely to resemble Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) at that age.  But an inspirational life story is NO BASIS for confirming or retaining a Supreme Court justice! 

A judge’s appearance, gender, ethnicity, “inspirational life story,” etc. are irrelevant.  Our system of justice requires a judiciary committed to upholding the rule of law and equal administration of justice.  Although “we the people” don’t (directly) have a vote at the Federal level, we CAN vote to uphold the rule of law here in Colorado.  Vote “NO” on the unjust justices of the Mullarkey Court in 2010 - let’s Clear The Bench, Colorado!

Although the Colorado Supreme Court’s assault on our constitutional rights is unrelenting, even a crusading commentator needs a break from time to time.  This video clip by the insightful and ever-amusing Steven Crowder of PJTV is not only on-topic, but outrageously funny (in a sad but true way).

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold interviewed by Jimmy Sengenberger of SengCenter radio on the importance of impartial justices, judicial philosophy, and upholding the rule of law against the backdrop of President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court and the failure of the “Mullarkey Majority” on the Colorado Supreme Court to live up to the standards of jurisprudence demanded of justices at the highest level.

Matt discusses some of the reasons that Colorado voters should “clear the bench” in 2010 by voting “NO” on four “unjust justices” of the Mullarkey Majority (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) and how the Sotomayor nomination provides a teaching moment on the attributes, qualities, and standards expected of judges.

Listen to the interview (which starts at about halfway through the show, @29 minutes)

Another excellent article (by Thomas Sowell) amplifies my earlier critique of “empathy” as a basis for selecting judges (particularly for the highest court - state or federal Supreme Court).  ALL citizens are entitled to fair and equal treatment before the law - Justice must be blind to race, class, ethnicity, or social status.  We must uphold the rule of law - not “rule by whimsy” to benefit a favored few.

‘Empathy’ in Action
A poisonous doctrine for any judge, much less a justice of the Supreme Court.   (some excerpts follow)

(Although this article doesn’t deal directly with the Colorado Supreme Court, it sheds an important light on the issue of judicial qualifications and attributes desirable in our judges - particularly on the highest court at both the State and Federal levels.  Cross-posted by permission of the author, Rossputin).

Well, we can’t say we weren’t warned. Obama has always said that the Constitution is essentially irrelevant, in the sense that it can and should mean whatever the newest, most liberal generation of activists in judges’ robes says it should mean.

And now we have the Supreme Court nominee to prove that Obama really meant it - and that elections have consequences.

Much fuss will be made over Sonia Sotomayor’s humble beginnings and Puerto Rican heritage, as if those things are qualifications for the nation’s (the world’s?) most important court. However, those beginnings and that heritage will remove the spine from enough Republicans that Sotomayor will have a relatively easy time getting approved.

For the record, I believe that the Senate should generally approve a president’s judicial nominations because that’s clearly a prerogative of winning an election unless the nominee is incompetent or was nominated through corruption, nepotism, etc.

But even a cursory look at some of Sotomayor’s decisions make one realize that she is a dangerous judge and one whose view of the importance of the Constitution is so twisted that she is, in my view, on the borderline of incompetence.

Most media discussion about Sotomayor’s judicial history is turning on a recent case in New Haven, Connecticut, where the city refused to promote firefighters after the results of the test created to judge who should be promoted ended up with no minorities passing the test. White firefighters sued, correctly saying that it was an obvious case of reverse discrimination. It has been widely reported that a highly respect judge on the same court, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, strongly criticized Sotomayor, saying that the 7-6 majority opinion essentially ignores “the weighty issues” involved in the appeal, particularly the weighty constitutional issues.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case and, with luck, will overturn Sotomayor’s decision from the Court of Appeals…just as they did on a 6-3 vote a few weeks ago in the case of Entergy v. Riverkeeper.

Riverkeeper is a case which should make supporters of property rights and of rational, limited government shudder. In that case, Sotomayor ruled that the EPA was not permitted to perform a cost/benefit analysis of technologies used to protect animals located near power plants. Instead, all that mattered was whether the industry could afford the “best” technology. The Supreme Court overruled Sotomayor, saying that the EPA could choose to use cost/benefit analysis. Can you imagine the implications for government and society if government agencies didn’t just avoid rational cost/benefit calculations from time to time, but were actually not permitted to make them?

Sotomayor has also cited international law or practices in her court decisions, another aspect of her approach which should frighten Americans.

A CNN review of Sotomayor’s rulings which have been heard by the Supreme Court shows that she is usually overruled, and that when she is not she is still often criticized for faulty logic or a faulty understanding of the law.

All in all, Sonia Sotomayor is exactly what we should have expected and feared from Barack Obama: A liberal activist who legislates from the bench, using any twisted logic she can find to squirm through existing law and obviate our Constitution.

Yes, Virginia, elections have consequences…

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

What makes a good judge?  According to President Barack Obama, the replacement he’s seeking for retiring Justice David Souter “must be an individual endowed with ‘empathy’.”

A recent article by Mike Rosen in the Denver Post explores the topic in greater depth.  Rosen notes that President Obama proclaimed of his potential Supreme Court nominee that ”‘I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book.  It is also about how our laws affect the daily reality of people’s lives.’  (Oprah, perhaps?)  Compassionate and seductive as this pronouncement may sound to some, it represents a radical and dangerous departure from traditional American jurisprudence.”

“When empathetic judges rule on their feelings, they are exceeding their authority …  The point is that the role of the judicial branch of our government is to rule on the Constitution as written and the law as passed by Congress and signed by the president.  The courts are a co-equal branch of government, not a superior branch.  Their job is not to rule on what they think the law ought to be.”

As noted in a previous post, there is a fundamental difference in principle between those (such as President Obama) who advocate for judges to render decisions based on “empathy”, twisting the law as necessary to reach a preferred outcome (as in recent rulings by our own Colorado Supreme Court), and those who hold judges accountable to exercise their proper function (and sworn duty) to uphold the rule of law. 

ALL citizens of Colorado (and the United States) are entitled to equal treatment before the law.  Judges who rule by “empathy” are playing favorites, “helping” a select few while harming everyone else.  Unless judges are restricted to their proper role as referees, not players, we all lose.