judicial redistricting
Colorado Supreme Court approves 40% tax increase
Although Colorado voters decisively repudiated a recent attempt to raise taxes at the ballot box this week (the “Proposition 103″ tax increase initiative, which at least did seek “voter approval in advance” as required by the Colorado Constitution, Article X, Section 20 – the ‘Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights’), on the day before votes were tallied, the Colorado Supreme Court approved what may have been the largest (percentage) tax increase in the history of Colorado – increasing a severance tax (on energy production) by over 40%.
Sadly, this latest ruling only continues a pattern of judicial assault on the rights of Colorado taxpayers that is both politically motivated (the court’s majority has frequently expressed antipathy towards the Colorado Constitution’s Article X, Section 20 – the ‘Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights’ – despite their oath to support and uphold the entire Constitution, not just the parts they like) and entirely predictable. (Indeed, Clear The Bench Colorado forecast the court’s decision over a year ago in this article):
Colorado Supreme Court prepares additional assault on taxpayer rights, hearing another stealth tax increase case (31 August 2010)
The Colorado Supreme Court’s ‘Mullarkey Majority’ has now gone 0-16 in upholding TABOR, a “perfect season” establishing them as the 2008 Detroit Lions of jurisprudence
(Mullarkey’s replacement, Monica Marquez, recused herself from the decision due to her role as a former Deputy Attorney General arguing the case for violating taxpayer’s rights before the Court of Appeals)
Some of the most prominent examples of the court’s “perfect” record:
- ‘Mill Levy Tax Freeze‘ property tax increase (calling the tax increase a “rate freeze”)
- ‘Dirty Dozen‘ tax increases (2010) and the 2009 tobacco tax increase (calling tax increases “elimination of Tax Credits & Exemptions“)
- ‘Colorado Car Tax’ (enabling tax increases by calling them “fees” instead of taxes)
Following the pattern of earlier anti-TABOR decisions, the majority opinion tortures statutory language to extract a tenuous justification for a constitutional end-run in favor of tax increases, overturning a Colorado Court of Appeals ruling that was a model of clarity and conciseness in legal language:
so simple, even a caveman could understand it:
We hold that TABOR precludes the challenged coal severance tax adjustments. Our holding is based on a simple syllogism:
(1) TABOR prohibits increasing tax rates without voter approval. Colo. Const. art. X, § 20(4)(a); Nicholl v. E-470 Public Highway Auth., 896 P.2d 859, 867 (Colo. 1995).
(2) Applying the statutory formula increased the coal severance tax rate (initially from $0.54 to $0.76 per ton) without voter approval.
(3) Therefore, TABOR was violated.
So how did the Colorado Supreme Court get around this clear, concise language?
The ruling majority declared that the tax increase was merely an “adjustment” to the “tax rate formula” that the statutory language “required” the Department of Revenue to increase – a “non-discretionary” mechanism (despite the undisputed fact that the Department of Revenue did exercise discretion – and complied with the Constitution by not raising the rate – for 15 years previously). The majority likewise ignored the well-established legal principle that constitutional language trumps statutory language, as Justice Coats pointed out in his dissent:
Not only is TABOR a constitutional provision to which legislative acts are subservient, rather than merely another statute itself, but its intent to limit the legislative taxing power by subjecting it directly to popular approval, see Bickel v. City of Boulder,885 P.2d 215, 226 (Colo. 1994), and to ‘s upersede” all conflicting state statutes could not be more clear, see Colo. Const. Art X, sec. 20 (1) (“All provisions are self-executing and severable and supersede conflicting state constitutional, state statutory, charter, or other state or local provisions.”). Starting November 4, 1992, the state is expressly required to have voter approval in advance for any tax rate increase that does not fall within a TABOR exception.
Colo. Const. Art X, sec. 20(4)(a). The language of TABOR simply does not admit of any construction permitting future tax rate increases without the constitutionally required voter approval, whether or not they were mandated by statutes enacted before the constitutional amendment, and this court has never suggested otherwise.
Despite the clearly-expressed intent of the voters, both in decisively repudiating a tax increase at the polls (in 2011) and in establishing constraints of the power of government to arbitrarily and without asking raise taxes (or “increase revenue” by any “tax policy changes”) by adopting a constitutional amendment (the “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” in 1992), the Colorado Supreme Court continues its unbroken streak of raising taxes by judicial decree, usurping the power and authority both of the legislature and of “We The People” – the ultimate sovereigns.
As Justice Coats made clear in his dissent:
It simply strains credulity beyond the breaking point to assert, as does the majority, that raising the tax on every ton of extracted coal from fifty-four to seventy-six cents is not a tax rate increase.
A tax increase by any other name (be it “elimination of existing exemption“, “fee“, or now “adjustment“) still smells as foul.
A violation of your right to have a say before having your money taken from you is just as bad (arguably, much worse) coming from the courts as coming from the executive or legislative branches - your wallet can’t tell the difference.
Know your rights – as a Citizen – and defend them.
Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts. We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.
However, we can’t do it alone – we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions. Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.
Ultimately, though – it’s worth the effort.
Defending the Constitution – Why 9/11 still matters today (10 years later)
“It is Tuesday morning, the 11th of September… and you will not forget this date.”
(TV reporter, unknown, reporting from NYC as events unfolded on the morning of 9/11…)
10 years ago today, the most horrific attack ever carried out on American soil claimed the lives of thousands of Americans, making clear that “there’ll be no shelter here – front lines are everywhere.”
Looking back, it occurred to me that I’ve since spent most anniversaries of that fateful Tuesday morning – forever burned into the American psyche as, simply, 9/11 – on duty away from home.
2002: Afghanistan; 2003: Fort Benning, Georgia; 2005: Operation Katrina (hurricane disaster relief/recovery operations); 2006: Fort Bragg, North Carolina; 2009: Camp Williams, Utah; and now this year, 2011: Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania.
My experience in this regard is hardly unique – indeed, I’ve spent less time on duty away from home than many others who proudly wear the uniform – a mere token of service willingly rendered in defense of our nation, and the Constitution we are sworn to support and defend.
Sadly, many of the men and women in uniform serving on that day and since – military, NYC Police & Port Authority, and FDNY - are not “invited” to the 10th anniversary of 9/11 at Ground Zero ’due to “lack of room”. Funny – they weren’t “invited” on that fateful day in 2001 either – they just “showed up” and did what needed to be done.
However, America isn’t about the politicians, officials, and various muckety-mucks who’ll be pontificating at that “official” event and others.
America is about the brave people – often bearing only the proud title of “Citizen” – who just “show up” to do what needs doing.
Defending the Constitution – Why 9/11 still matters today (10 years later)
Clear The Bench Colorado joins millions of Americans across the country in somber remembrance of the 9/11 attacks on our nation.
What does this have to do with holding our Colorado Supreme Court justices accountable to the rule of law and the Colorado Constitution? Quite a lot, actually…
As a proud veteran of the U.S. military (including service in the Colorado Army National Guard), I take my oath of enlistment – “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of Colorado [emphasis added] against all enemies, foreign and domestic” - seriously; very seriously.
Many of our elected (and unelected) officials seem to have a much more cavalier attitude towards their own oath of office.
Colorado Supreme Court justices also swear a similar oath on taking office, which begins:
“I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Colorado.”
Note that the judicial oath of office does not state “I will support only those parts of the Constitution that I like or with which I personally agree or empathize.”
Yet the Mullarkey Court has consistently ruled against the Colorado Constitution’s Article X, Section 20 (TABOR) in every case it has heard – despite the clear intent and letter of the law that “[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government.”
The Mullarkey Majority (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) are oathbreakers – and dishonor the service of the men and women of the United States military and law enforcement agencies who put their lives on the line to support and defend our Constitution. They have proven themselves unworthy of the high office they occupy.
Another important lesson of 9/11 is that individuals matter – and fighting to defend your rights, and your lives, is the only way to preserve your rights (and your life, in extremis) when under attack. The true heroes of that day were not only the firefighters but also the ordinary citizens who acted to save lives – and the brave passengers on Flight 93 who fought back against the hijackers on the 4th plane and died not as victims, but as American heroes.
We can no longer be under any illusion – as the passengers on Flight 93 discovered – that our rights and lives are NOT under attack; we are threatened by enemies both foreign and domestic. The nature of the threat (and appropriate response) is different, but the need to take action, to defend your rights – remains the same.
Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts. We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.
However, we can’t do it alone – we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions. Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.
Ultimately, though – it’s worth the effort.
Saturday Morning Cartoons take over Denver Post editorial board – DP editors call military veteran a “skunk” on 9/11
Apparently, the adults were away at the Denver Post editorial board Saturday morning…
While most Americans spent the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on our country in solemn and respectful remembrance of “a date which shall live in infamy”, the Denver Post editorial board used the occasion to take a cheap shot at a decorated military veteran standing up for the constitutional rights of Coloradans against an overbearing, out-of-control group of politicians in black robes.
Eh?
That’s right – the puerile purveyors of pusillanimous punditry and pathetic potshots at the Post…
…called me a skunk.
Literally.
The Denver Post’s editorial Saturday morning (“Nine years later, we must never forget“) dedicated almost half the print space of their 9/11 editorial to a rather juvenile personal attack (excerpt follows):
“Yet there always has to be a skunk at the garden party, and this time the role of Pepe Le Pew was played by Matt Arnold of Clear the Bench Colorado, a group that wants voters to oust all of the justices who are up for retention this year.”
Realizing that it was Saturday morning and time for cartoons and all – when did the Post editors send the adults home and put puerile namecallers in charge of the paper?
So… what prompted this stinky script?
Daring to express skepticism about Governor Ritter’s pick of Deputy Attorney General Monica Marquez to become Colorado’s next supreme court justice (replacing outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who announced in June that she would resign rather than be held accountable by voters this November) apparently soured the congratulatory kumbayah chorus led by the Post.
Recognizing that Marquez is no doubt a fine attorney, praised as such by her boss Attorney General John Suthers (who also earlier endorsed a “NO” vote on three Colorado Supreme Court justices), we expressed concerns that her lack of judicial experience, coupled with a pattern of taking positions directly contrary to the Colorado Constitution, formed a troubling indicator of potential activism from the bench:
Many of her positions on constitutional issues raise concerns about how she might rule from the bench. Marquez advocated in favor of the 2003 judicial takeover of legislative redistricting authority in the Salazar v. Davidson redistricting case, argued that “fees” are not taxes in the Barber v. Ritter case (which led to the 2009 Colorado Car Tax – er, vehicle registration “fee” – increases), and has sought to restrict the 1st Amendment rights of citizens seeking to speak out on ballot issues in recent and ongoing cases. She is also the lead attorney in yet another attempt to impose an unconstitutional tax increase on Colorado Citizens.
The Post editorial board also made knowingly false statements in suggesting that Clear The Bench Colorado has issued (or would issue) a blanket condemnation of “any of Ritter’s picks.” Although we have certainly been critical of many of the governor’s choices, we are on record as praising several of Ritter’s picks when they have acted to uphold the constitutional rights of Colorado citizens, as many of his appointments on the Colorado Court of Appeals (apparently the highest court in Colorado which retains respect for the rule of law) have done (most recently in rejecting another unconstitutional tax increase, and earlier this year upholding the constitutional and statutory rights of Colorado concealed-carry permit holders). Unfortunately, the solid jurisprudence of those judges is under attack (in both cases mentioned, and several others) in the activist, anti-constitutional Colorado Supreme Court.
Truly, another stellar moment in journalism at the once-proud “newspaper of record” in Colorado…
No more stench from the bench!
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 – soon 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.”
Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions – and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!
Defending the Constitution – Why 9/11 still matters today (reprise)
At the conclusion of a tremendously busy week, during which my time has been consumed with an extraordinary number of interviews, comments, and correspondence related to Governor Ritter’s selection of Deputy Attorney General Monica Marquez to become Colorado’s next supreme court justice (replacing outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who announced in June that she would resign rather than be held accountable by voters this November) while at the same time preparing for my next military training event, my thought turned to that fateful day 9 years ago (which seems so far away, and yet so indelibly etched on my memory that it could be yesterday) when our nation was attacked – from within our borders, although the ultimate source was from abroad.
Struggling (in my somewhat exhausted state) to come up with something appropriate and fitting to write, I ended up looking back at what I’d written on this date last year.
I can’t improve upon what I wrote then – so I’m reprising my 9/11 commemoration from a year ago: it remains startlingly relevant.
Defending the Constitution – Why 9/11 still matters today
Clear The Bench Colorado joins millions of Americans across the country in somber remembrance of the 9/11 attacks on our nation.
What does this have to do with holding our Colorado Supreme Court justices accountable to the rule of law and the Colorado Constitution? Quite a lot, actually…
As a proud veteran of the U.S. military (including service in the Colorado Army National Guard), I take my oath of enlistment – “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of Colorado [emphasis added] against all enemies, foreign and domestic” - seriously; very seriously.
Many of our elected (and unelected) officials seem to have a much more cavalier attitude towards their own oath of office.
Colorado Supreme Court justices also swear an oath, similar to mine, on taking office, which begins: “I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Colorado.”
Note that the judicial oath of office does not state “I will support only those parts of the Constitution that I like or with which I personally agree or empathize.”
Yet the Mullarkey Court has consistently ruled against the Colorado Constitution’s Article X, Section 20 (TABOR) in every case it has heard – despite the clear intent and letter of the law that “[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government.”
The Mullarkey Majority (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) are oathbreakers – and dishonor the service of the men and women of the United States military and law enforcement agencies who put their lives on the line to support and defend our Constitution. They have proven themselves unworthy of the high office they occupy, and must NOT be retained in that office following the November 2010 elections. Vote “NO” on these unjust justices!
Another important lesson of 9/11 is that individuals matter – and fighting to defend your rights, and your lives, is the only way to preserve your rights (and your life, in extremis) when under attack. The true heroes of that day were not only the firefighters but also the ordinary citizens who acted to save lives – and the brave passengers on Flight 93 who fought back against the hijackers on the 4th plane and died not as victims, but as American heroes.
We can no longer be under any illusion – as the passengers on Flight 93 discovered – that our rights and lives are NOT under attack; we are threatened by enemies both foreign and domestic. The nature of the threat (and appropriate response) is different, but the need to take action, to defend your rights – remains the same.
Freedom isn’t Free... Exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority” (incumbent Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice; soon minus ringleader Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) needing 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 contributions – and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!
Friday Funnies: Sick Puppies at Pols, Barry takes my bet – reaction to Monica Marquez pick for Colorado Supreme Court
Reaction to Governor Ritter’s selection of Deputy Attorney General Monica Marquez to become Colorado’s next supreme court justice (replacing outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who announced in June that she would resign rather than be held accountable by voters this November) and concerns expressed by Clear The Bench Colorado regarding her positions on important constitutional questions ( Marquez advocated in favor of the 2003 judicial takeover of legislative redistricting authority in the Salazar v. Davidson redistricting case, argued that “fees” are not taxes in the Barber v. Ritter case (which led to the 2009 Colorado Car Tax – er, vehicle registration “fee” – increases), has sought to restrict the 1st Amendment rights of citizens seeking to speak out on ballot issues in recent and ongoing cases, and is also the lead attorney in yet another attempt to impose an unconstitutional tax increase on Colorado Citizens) ranged from the superficial (short spots on most local television: CBS4, KDVR31) to the basic (“Ritter picks Monica Marquez for Colorado Supreme Court“, Denver Post) to the informative (“Monica Marquez Supreme Court selection disappoints Clear the Bench’s Matt Arnold“, Westword) to the predictably shrill and misleading (left-wing propaganda outlet Colorado “not-so” Independent accusing CTBC of a “diatribe” against Marquez and making up non-existent “attacks on her ethnicity or sexual orientation” – the last refuge of scoundrels: playing the race and sex card).
It took the juvenile minds (er, mouths) at Colorado Pols, though, to come completely unhinged in their response. Going off the deep end and reaching a new low in rabid incoherence, the puerile Pols piece (“Clear the Bench” Blows the Dog Whistle – does that make sense to anyone sentient?) perceived a “code-word reference” in the Clear The Bench Colorado critique of Marquez’ positions on constitutional interpretation and exclusively advocacy-based career path. (Code words? Can they even perceive how fringe and paranoid that sounds?) Attempting to sling mud (er, doggie droppings) by insinuating “just beneath the surface, you can see it’s a bit ugly” makes them look like – well, a bunch of sick puppies.
On a more humorous (and uplifting) note – among the many calls I fielded for interviews yesterday was a lengthy and wide-ranging chat with Colorado Springs Gazette house liberal Barry Noreen (at the end of our conversation, I told him that he’s really a closet libertarian in many respects, which got a chuckle). I’m curious to see what he ends up writing, since we wandered off-topic a bit; I think that he was trying to get a sense of what drives me personally (and motivates Clear The Bench Colorado). No decoder ring necessary – it’s about upholding and defending constitutional principles and the rule of law. He did end up taking my bet (offered in response to an earlier, and more adversarial, critique he had mailed, when he asserted “these justices will be retained with ease”). Our bet: if any of the Colorado Supreme Court justices on the ballot is non-retained, or squeaks by with 60% or less of the total vote, I win; otherwise, he wins. (The stakes: a six-pack of beer, winner’s choice).
Looking forward to enjoying some beer on Barry, after November 2nd – and it won’t be the cheap stuff. ;-)
Colorado voters have the chance to make history, stand up in defense of our constitutional rights (and don’t forget, get Barry to buy me beer) this year. 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, and Nancy Rice; soon minus ringleader 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 contributions – and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!
Governor Ritter succumbs to special interests: Monica Marquez picked to be the next Colorado Supreme Court justice
Well, at least they won’t have to change the monogrammed towels…
Governor Bill Ritter appears to have proved the cynics right (those who argued that he would base his selection on politics, rather than judicial experience) by picking Deputy Attorney General Monica Marquez as the next Colorado Supreme Court justice (replacing outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who announced in June that she would resign rather than be held accountable by voters this November), bypassing what appeared to be two highly experienced, eminently qualified, and non-partisan judges (El Paso District Judge David Prince and Colorado Appeals Court Judge Robert Russel).
Clear The Bench Colorado was among the few who held out hope that the outgoing governor would set aside politics and do the right thing in basing his decision on qualifications and judicial experience. His apparent decision to knuckle under to special interests instead of siding with Colorado Citizens and promoting judges who will uphold the rule of law is disappointing.
Ritter’s pick of Marquez comes on the heels of an intensive lobbying campaign by the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association (Ms. Marquez is on the board of that group) both following and during the nomination process (apparently a bloc in the Supreme Court Nominating Commission advocated strongly for Ms. Marquez on the basis of politics, not qualifications). This is not to say that Ms. Marquez is unqualified; she is undoubtedly a fine attorney. However, there is a significant difference in temperament and approach in being an attorney (which involves taking sides, often aggressively, for a client) and being a good judge (sworn to fairly and impartially apply the law, as written – NOT taking sides).
Although it may be possible to overcome a lifetime habit of political activism and advocacy to become a fair, impartial judge who upholds the rule of law, it requires a significant mental shift – probably best reinforced by experience gained by being a judge on a lower court, rather than going right to the top.
Unfortunately, Ritter’s selection will only serve to further erode public confidence in a Colorado Supreme Court already damaged by a decade of highly-politicized, anti-constitutional rulings, since Marquez lacks any judicial experience and seems to have built her entire career on policy & political activism.
Many of her positions on constitutional issues raise concerns about how she might rule from the bench. Marquez advocated in favor of the 2003 judicial takeover of legislative redistricting authority in the Salazar v. Davidson redistricting case, argued that “fees” are not taxes in the Barber v. Ritter case (which led to the 2009 Colorado Car Tax – er, vehicle registration “fee” – increases), and has sought to restrict the 1st Amendment rights of citizens seeking to speak out on ballot issues in recent and ongoing cases. She is also the lead attorney in yet another attempt to impose an unconstitutional tax increase on Colorado Citizens.
Of course, to avoid running afoul of judicial ethics violations, she would have to recuse herself from ruling on any of these cases or related issues in which she has been directly involved when they come up before the Colorado Supreme Court – which emphasizes the importance of the remaining justices.
In any case, Colorado Citizens will render their verdict on prospective Justice Marquez when she must receive voter approval to remain in office after 2 years (the first term of any judicial appointment is the so-called “probationary” term – so Marquez will appear on the 2012 ballot).
In the meantime, Colorado voters have the opportunity to render their verdict on the three remaining incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices on this year’s ballot who are seeking an additional TEN year term in office.
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 – soon 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.” Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions – and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!
Last Chance to Speak Out – Governor’s Office seeks public comment on Colorado Supreme Court nominees before deciding
Speak Now, or Forever Hold Your Peace…
Governor Ritter has asked for public comment on the three nominees (he’ll pick one of the three) put forward by the Supreme Court Nominating Commission to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who announced in June that she would resign rather than be held accountable by voters this November.
Send E-mails to judicial.appointments@state.co.us with your comments, concerns, or suggestions.
The Denver Post profiled the 3 Colorado Supreme Court nominees in successive articles last weekend (in order of appearance: El Paso District Judge David Prince, Deputy Attorney General Monica Marquez, and Colorado Appeals Court Judge Robert Russel); additional, substantive information (including the public applications submitted to the Supreme Court Nominating Commission, which met in secret to evaluate and interview a total of 31 applicants) is available on the Law Week Colorado website (”Governor’s Office Makes Public Applications Of Justice Finalists“).
Don’t let your opportunity to weigh in on this important issue slip away by failing to act when you had the chance – indeed, when you were asked to offer your opinion. Write the governor today to express YOUR views on selecting our next Colorado Supreme Court justice…
We The People can (indeed, as citizens, we must) hold our public officials – both elected & appointed – accountable. Be a citizen, not a subject - get informed, then express your opinion on which of these three nominees the governor should be appoint to become the next justice of the Colorado Supreme Court (it will be another 2 years before you’ll be able to weigh in at the ballot box, at the conclusion of their first – probationary – term of office).
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 – soon 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.” Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions – and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!
Nominees to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey on Colorado Supreme Court profiled in Denver Post (part 3)
For the first time in the history of Colorado’s “merit selection and retention” process for placing and removing the occupants of judicial office, Colorado Citizens are being presented with substantive information not only on the three incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices who will appear on the November ballot, but also on the three nominees (the governor will pick one of the three) to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who announced in June that she would resign rather than be held accountable by Colorado voters this November).
Thanks to the increased attention on the Colorado Supreme Court this year, and the consistent efforts of the legal-affairs journal Law Week Colorado for longer than that, the public applications of the three finalists (complete except for removal of purely personal information shielded for privacy reasons – entirely appropriately) which include some relevant background on the candidates for judicial office – were made public. The public applications may be viewed in their entirety on the Law Week website (“Governor’s Office Makes Public Applications Of Justice Finalists“) or downloaded to review in detail.
The governor’s office has even requested public input on the nominees – providing Colorado Citizens the opportunity to weigh in on who will become Colorado’s next supreme court justice; but act fast, the governor is expected to make a decision next week (“Speak Now, or Forever Hold Your Peace… Governor’s Office seeks public comment on Colorado Supreme Court nominees“).
The Denver Post – which, after noting in February that “Four Colorado Supreme Court justices face a tough vote in elections” was largely silent on this important issue until very recently (possibly in response to criticism that their [lack of] coverage may have been influenced by the fact that the Post is being paid $1.6 million per year as the Colorado Supreme Court’s current landlord) when an article acknowledged that “four state Supreme Court justices [may not] survive an attempt to remove them from the bench this election.”
Bygones.
Denver Post courts reporter Felisa Cardona has written up a series of profiles of the three finalists to become the next Colorado Supreme Court justice – the third and last of which (“Supreme Court Finalists: Candidate’s writings show clarity of thought“) appears in today’s (Monday) paper.
Clear The Bench Colorado commends the Denver Post for (finally?) shedding some light on the individuals who may next be elevated to our highest court. We have called upon the Denver Post editors to join us in requesting greater transparency in the process by which the nominees are selected, as well – and most importantly, to join us in holding the incumbent justices accountable to the Colorado Constitution, the rule of law, and (ultimately) to the citizens of Colorado.
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 – soon to be 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.” Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions – and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!
Nominees to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey on Colorado Supreme Court profiled in Denver Post (part 2)
For the first time in the history of Colorado’s “merit selection and retention” process for placing and removing the occupants of judicial office, Colorado Citizens are being presented with substantive information not only on the three incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices who will appear on the November ballot, but also on the three nominees (the governor will pick one of the three) to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who announced in June that she would retire rather than be held accountable by Colorado voters this November).
Thanks to the increased attention on the Colorado Supreme Court this year, and the consistent efforts of the legal-affairs journal Law Week Colorado for longer than that, the public applications of the three finalists (complete except for removal of purely personal information shielded for privacy reasons – entirely appropriately) which include some relevant background on the candidates for judicial office – were made public. The public applications may be viewed in their entirety on the Law Week website (“Governor’s Office Makes Public Applications Of Justice Finalists“) or downloaded to review in detail.
The governor’s office has even requested public input on the nominees – providing Colorado Citizens the opportunity to weigh in on who will become Colorado’s next supreme court justice; but act fast, the governor is expected to make a decision next week (“Speak Now, or Forever Hold Your Peace… Governor’s Office seeks public comment on Colorado Supreme Court nominees“).
The Denver Post – which, after noting in February that “Four Colorado Supreme Court justices face a tough vote in elections” was largely silent on this important issue until very recently (possibly in response to criticism that their [lack of] coverage may have been influenced by the fact that the Post is being paid $1.6 million per year as the Colorado Supreme Court’s current landlord) when an article acknowledged that “four state Supreme Court justices [may not] survive an attempt to remove them from the bench this election.”
Bygones.
Denver Post courts reporter Felisa Cardona has written up a series of profiles of the three finalists to become the next Colorado Supreme Court justice – the second of which (“Supreme Court Finalists: Breadth of experience seen as balancing youth“) appears in today’s (Sunday) paper.
Clear The Bench Colorado commends the Denver Post for (finally?) shedding some light on the individuals who may next be elevated to our highest court. We have called upon the Denver Post editors to join us in requesting greater transparency in the process by which the nominees are selected, as well – and most importantly, to join us in holding the incumbent justices accountable to the Colorado Constitution, the rule of law, and (ultimately) to the citizens of Colorado.
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 – soon to be 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.” Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions – and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!
Nominees to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey on Colorado Supreme Court profiled in Denver Post (part 1)
For the first time in the history of Colorado’s “merit selection and retention” process for placing and removing the occupants of judicial office, Colorado Citizens are being presented with substantive information not only on the three incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices who will appear on the November ballot, but also on the three nominees (the governor will pick one of the three) to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who announced in June that she would retire rather than be held accountable by Colorado voters this November).
Thanks to the increased attention on the Colorado Supreme Court this year, and the consistent efforts of the legal-affairs journal Law Week Colorado for longer than that, the public applications of the three finalists (complete except for removal of purely personal information shielded for privacy reasons – entirely appropriately) which include some relevant background on the candidates for judicial office – were made public. The public applications may be viewed in their entirety on the Law Week website (“Governor’s Office Makes Public Applications Of Justice Finalists“) or downloaded to review in detail.
The governor’s office has even requested public input on the nominees – providing Colorado Citizens the opportunity to weigh in on who will become Colorado’s next supreme court justice; but act fast, the governor is expected to make a decision next week (“Speak Now, or Forever Hold Your Peace… Governor’s Office seeks public comment on Colorado Supreme Court nominees“).
The Denver Post – which, after noting in February that “Four Colorado Supreme Court justices face a tough vote in elections” was largely silent on this important issue until very recently (possibly in response to criticism that their [lack of] coverage may have been influenced by the fact that the Post is being paid $1.6 million per year as the Colorado Supreme Court’s current landlord) when an article acknowledged that “four state Supreme Court justices [may not] survive an attempt to remove them from the bench this election.”
Bygones.
Denver Post courts reporter Felisa Cardona has written up a series of profiles of the three finalists to become the next Colorado Supreme Court justice – the first of which (“Colorado Supreme Court finalist Prince applies diligence to his cases – and his barbecue“) appears in today’s (Saturday) paper.
Clear The Bench Colorado commends the Denver Post for (finally?) shedding some light on the individuals who may next be elevated to our highest court. We have called upon the Denver Post editors to join us in requesting greater transparency in the process by which the nominees are selected, as well – and most importantly, to join us in holding the incumbent justices accountable to the Colorado Constitution, the rule of law, and (ultimately) to the citizens of Colorado.
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 – soon to be 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.” Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions – and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!