Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold called in to the Mike Rosen Show Wednesday following up on an interview with nationally syndicated analyst Michael Barone regarding Congressional redistricting and state-level reapportionment of legislative districts.

Michael Barone spoke broadly on the issue of redistricting nationwide - and was almost certainly unaware of the peculiarities of how the redistricting and reapportionment processes in Colorado are dominated by the Colorado Supreme Court (which ultimately has the final say on both).

After explaining how the reapportionment (state legislative districting) process works in Colorado, and how Congressional redistricting was hijacked by the Colorado Supreme Court following the 2000 census (and how the groundwork has been laid to do so again), the discussion shifted to Tuesday afternoon’s announcement of the three finalists 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.   After providing a brief overview of the judicial nomination process, the discussion concluded with some remarks on the potential replacements for the Colorado Supreme Court.

(Listen to the podcast here - the CTBC segment runs from about the 30 to the 38 minute marks)

An interesting addendum was provided by a follow-up caller, identifying herself as a former Supreme Court Nominating Commissioner named “Mary” from Longmont.

Her stated intent was to “rebut” the CTBC Director - but missed the mark by a bit (although she did provide some interesting insight into the nominating/selection process and commissioner mindset).

She stated that the nominating commission process was, quote, “the most nonpartisan activity I ever engaged in” (although, in response to Mike Rosen’s follow up question “Was it non-ideological?” she conceded “not exactly.”)

She stated that the commission was “more interested in not getting the ‘Black Robe Syndrome’, where judges think they’re above God almighty and can do whatever they want.”  (Rosen nailed it with his follow-up: “You mean like the liberal majority currently on the state Supreme Court?”  Couldn’t have said it better myself…)

After some more discussions along those lines, the caller veered away from reality to advance a ’strawman’ criticism of Clear The Bench Colorado:

Caller: “My plea… is that we don’t change the system… where judges…  don’t have to raise thousands of dollars to run…”

Rosen responds: “The system is not perfect - so the question is: would any changes make it better or worse?”

Caller: “If there can be a degree of public scrutiny… I wouldn’t be opposed to it.” [Ed: gracious of her to concede the point]

Rosen: “We have a retention [vote] option, but unfortunately that [has been] more theoretical than practical.”

Caller: “Maybe that needs to be beefed up…. maybe you need to do a better job of getting the opinions of existing judges before they go to the ballot”  [Ed: that is the point of Clear The Bench Colorado - informed citizens making informed choices on judicial officeholders, and holding them accountable]

Rosen: “The ‘Blue Book‘ just before an election, when this committee gives us the appraisal of judges… that is the most platitudinous, worthless appraisal ever… and rarely do they ever not recommend retention, so I find that of no value whatsoever.”

The caller then concluded by bemoaning that “the voting thing is so skewed with dollars…”  I think that people like my father would turn over in his grave if he knew there was some movement to have elected judges.”

(Listen to the podcast here - the call starts off the 11AM hour, and continues to the 11 minute mark)

Let me be clear on one point:  that concluding statement was either ignorant,  or a deliberate lie.  Either way, it is a gross mischaracterization.

Clear The Bench Colorado has not advocated for a return to contested elections for judges.  The entire point is to increase voter awareness of our rights within the system, provide some much-needed information (doing a “better job of getting the opinions of existing judges before they go to the ballot”, for example) - since, as Rosen correctly points out, the Blue Book summation of the Performance Review Commissions “evaluations” is “platitudinous, worthless… and of no value whatsoever” in providing substantive information with which voters can make an informed decision.

An additional, hypocritical, gross mischaracterization advanced by the caller is the role of money in the judicial retention evaluation and election process.  Yes, the “voting thing” is skewed with dollars - in favor of retaining incumbents.  Not only are large amounts of taxpayer dollars spent on the whitewash judicial performance review “evaluations” (and subsequent printing & distribution in the “Blue Book”) which have ALWAYS (100%!) recommended retention for Colorado Supreme Court justices, but legal establishment special-interest groups have spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, on incumbent-protection campaigns (including the “Grueskin Group” formed specifically to counter the judicial-accountability message of Clear The Bench Colorado and protect incumbents judging their cases).  Yet despite the obvious conflict of interest posed by attorneys spending to protect incumbent judges who will rule on cases in which the same attorneys take part, they are allowed to spend freely - since, by maintaining the status quo, they need only point to the judicial review commission’s “retain” recommendations and claim a purely “educational” mission free of direct advocacy.  These groups are also not subject to campaign finance law reporting and accountability, in contrast to grassroots organizations like Clear The Bench Colorado - allowing them to work outside of public scrutiny.  Corrupting influence?  Perish the thought!

Become an informed voter; conduct your own evaluation of the performance of these justices, based on how (and whether) they follow the Constitution and uphold the rule of law.  As an informed citizen, Yes, you can exercise your right to vote “NO” on the four (er, now three) ‘unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority (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 homes and business from seizure by abuse of eminent domain, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of 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 in the November elections!

The Clear The Bench Colorado message - ‘vote “NO” on the unjust justices of the Colorado Supreme Court in November 2010 to restore accountability to the judiciary and bring back balance to the bench’ -  is being picked up by an increasing number of astute observers of the state of affairs in Colorado.

Thanks to an attentive observer, the Clear The Bench Colorado team was alerted to Mike Rosen’s comments on the Colorado Supreme Court during his Tuesday (17 November) show.  Speaking of the current occupants of Colorado’s highest court, Mike stated that the

“5-member judicial activist liberal bloc on the state Supreme Court is an unelected judicial activist outpost… and this would be a great time for Colorado to try and balance the scales in Nov. 2010.”

(Listen to the podcast of the 17 November Mike Rosen show here - comments at 20:00 minutes in)

Learn more about the most recent Colorado Supreme Court power grab, the Mullarkey Court’s repeated assaults on the Colorado Constitution, the resulting impact to your wallet, the degradation or outright elimination of YOUR constitutional rights, and what you can do about it at Clear The Bench 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 have policy decided by elected, accountable legislators (not unelected judges); your right to vote on tax increases; your right to have a say in how you are represented; 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 your “NO” vote on retaining unjust justices in 2010!

Cross-posted from the Peoples Press Collective and Mount Virtus websites, from commentator Big Ben (big, but “not as big as Rasmussen“) DeGrow:

“Despite all the hoopla (much of it well-deserved) about the election results, let’s not lose focus on an easily overlooked issue that should factor into some of our important decisions for 2010 — namely, the Colorado Supreme Court delving into political questions of how our schools are funded in Lobato v State.

You now can listen to my recent 8-minute interview on this very topic with Brad Jones on Face The State Weekend edition.

Whether or not you get to listen, let me explain — no, let me sum up: The case for Clear The Bench Colorado is now overwhelming.”

Overwhelming, indeed.  The Independence Institute’s expert analyst on Education Policy (and frequent online commentator)  Ben DeGrow is part of the rising chorus of commentators (Mike Rosen’s Denver Post column Thursday, Mark Hillman’s excellent article Wednesday, and Vince Carroll’s superb commentary Sunday, to name just the most prominent recent examples) speaking out against the Mullarkey Majority’s most recent blatantly unconstitutional ruling - and piling-on power grab - in Lobato v. State of Colorado.  Ben’s radio piece supplements his first big broadside against the dangerous Lobato ruling and his Taking on the Colorado Supreme Court blog post,  following the very-next-day analysis and commentary of the ruling posted right here on Clear The Bench Colorado.

Inform yourself about this outrageous Colorado Supreme Court ruling - in print,  on-air, and online - Exercise your rights (while you still have them) - hold the unjust justices of the Mullarkey Majority accountable to the Colorado Constitution and the rule of law.  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 have policy decided by elected, accountable legislators (not unelected judges); 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 these unjust justices in 2010!

An alert reader (hat tip to Live Free Colorado) brought the Colorado Springs Gazette editorial criticizing the tax and “fee” ‘bait and switch’ tactics employed by the current administration - thanks to the Mullarkey Majority’s unconstitutional ruling last November - to my attention this morning.

The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights clearly says that voters have to approve any new tax in Colorado. Many jurisdictions, including the state and Colorado Springs, have danced around this requirement by instituting fees to cover costs that should rightly be funded with taxes. This allows those governments to get what they want - and in all fairness sometimes what they need to serve the public - without the bother of asking permission. The Colorado Supreme Court has been complicit in allowing this, ruling many times that these fees aren’t really stealth taxes. That fact has unfortunately emboldened new abuses of fees, and the latest example is Gov. Bill Ritter’s August raid of the state’s fee-funded tire cleanup fund to help balance the budget.

The Gazette editorial is yet another example of what seems to be a groundswell of opinion critical of the Mullarkey Majority’s outrageous rulings - brought to the forefront by last week’s ruling usurping the power of the legislature to make policy on school funding that kicked off a virtual storm of commentary by some of the most prominent observers of political events in Colorado. (Mike Rosen’s Denver Post column Thursday, Mark Hillman’s excellent article Wednesday, Vince Carroll’s superb commentary Sunday, and - not least -  Independence Institute’s expert analyst on Education Policy (and frequent online commentator)  Ben DeGrow (who’s big - but “not as big as Rasmussen”) Taking on the Colorado Supreme Court last Sunday, too).

The Gazette editorial correctly calls Governor Ritter to account for resorting to ”the ol’ bait and switch” - moving funds collected by fees for a specific purpose (in this case, the tire waste fund) - into the general fund in order to “balance the budget”:

Any time a fee is imposed by government, the legislation setting up the fee provides for how the money is to be spent. A fee should address a specific issue to be addressed with that revenue. The tire waste fund comes from a $1.50 fee the state charges when you buy a new tire and leave the old one at the dealer. It is supposed to be used to subsidize tire recycling efforts in the state. The subsidy is needed because, according to a recent Denver Post report, the demand for recycled tires isn’t high enough to make recycling profitable, and Colorado has the largest stockpile of old tires in the nation. Ritter’s actions exacerbate the problem. Worse, though, his raid on the waste tire fund created what is essentially a new tax on tires.

The Colorado high court disagrees, saying, in essence, that as long as revenue from a fee goes into the fund for which it was intended, it’s still a fee, regardless of what it’s spent on. Additionally, the court says that because the revenue is already in the state coffers, it’s not new revenue if it is moved to the General Fund. Using the court’s rationale, the Legislature could charge a fee to, say, offset damage to state roads from large pickup trucks and SUVs. It could then raid that fund to pay for capital improvements or maintenance to public school buildings.

Any way you slice it, that’s underhanded and a breach of the public trust.

 The Mullarkey Majority’s semantic shenanigans - playing fast and loose with the letter of the law, the very Constitution they are sworn to support and uphold - have aided and abetted numerous underhanded, unconstitutional legislative sleights of hand and breaches of the public trust.

DON’T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT!  Exercise your rights (while you still have them) - hold the unjust justices of the Mullarkey Majority accountable to the Colorado Constitution and the rule of law.  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 have policy decided by elected, accountable legislators (not unelected judges); 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 these unjust justices in 2010!

“A sense that the Colorado Supreme Court is growing out of control continues to pick up momentum after the October 19 Lobato v State ruling (PDF), in which the 4-3 liberal majority arrogated to itself the power to determine school funding policy.”

The Independence Institute’s expert analyst on Education Policy (and frequent online commentator)  Ben DeGrow is part of the rising chorus of commentators (Mike Rosen’s Denver Post column Thursday, Mark Hillman’s excellent article Wednesday, and Vince Carroll’s superb commentary Sunday, to name just the most prominent recent examples) speaking out against the Mullarkey Majority’s most recent blatantly unconstitutional ruling - and piling-on power grab - in Lobato v. State of Colorado last Monday.  Ben claims to have offered the first big broadside against the dangerous Lobato ruling in his Taking on the Colorado Supreme Court blog post today, but in reality only ties Vince Carroll for 2nd (both piece published Sunday) following the very-next-day analysis and commentary of the ruling posted right here on Clear The Bench Colorado.

Despite only coming in second (sorry, Ben) past the gate, Ben’s article in the Colorado Daily is well worth reading not only for the analysis of the Mullarkey Majority’s flawed Lobato v. Colorado ruling but also for Ben’s insights into how this ruling will negatively impact Colorado’s schools and end up hurting - not helping - Colorado’s school-age children.

Ben will also will be talking about the Lobato case and school funding adequacy on Face The State weekend radio with Brad Jones. In the Denver area, that’s AM 710 KNUS on Saturday at 5:00 AM and Sunday at noon. Check local listings for additional stations and times.

Inform yourself about this outrageous Colorado Supreme Court ruling - in print,  on-air, and online - Exercise your rights (while you still have them) - hold the unjust justices of the Mullarkey Majority accountable to the Colorado Constitution and the rule of law.  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 have policy decided by elected, accountable legislators (not unelected judges); 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 these unjust justices in 2010!

“The liberal majority on the Colorado Supreme Court has taken judicial chutzpah to a new level.”

Mike Rosen’s column in today’s Denver Post joins the rising chorus of commentators (Mark Hillman’s excellent article Wednesday, and Vince Carroll’s superb commentary Sunday, to name just the most prominent recent examples) speaking out against the Mullarkey Majority’s most recent blatantly unconstitutional ruling - and piling-on power grab - in Lobato v. State of Colorado last Monday.

As Rosen notes, “the level of education spending is inherently a budgeting and political question that must be considered in the context of competing demands from other essential services for finite revenues” - a question properly (and constitutionally) the domain of our elected (and accountable) legislators.

“Uh-uh, said the liberal Supremes, trumping the lower courts, we’re going to arrogate this power to the judiciary. Since simply spending more money on public schools doesn’t necessarily produce better results, this ruling implicitly gives courts the authority to also dictate what is taught and how.” (emphasis added)

This latest ruling is only the most recent example of the out-of-control Mullarkey Court’s grab for power - claiming the authority to be the ultimate arbiter of ALL political issues in Colorado, authority it does not have under the Colorado Constitution and the rule of law.

As Rosen points out, “the appointed members of the court… exploit unchecked power. Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, the liberal-in-chief, has been there for 22 years.”

Blatant partisanship and arrogant judicial activism - advancing a political agenda by making law, not simply upholding it - is nothing new to the court’s liberals. In the past they’ve co-opted the legislature by imposing a Democrat-contrived redistricting plan on the state, and overrode TABOR when they conveniently declared Gov. Bill Ritter’s property tax increase a “freeze.”

Fortunately, there’s a remedy in Colorado for runaway judges like these. Unlike U.S. Supreme Court justices, Colorado jurists aren’t appointed for life.

Periodically, they must stand for a retention vote by the citizens. As benevolent coincidence has it, three of the four liberal activists who conspired in this ruling are up for retention in 2010: the aforementioned Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey along with Justices Alex Martinez and Michael Bender. (The fourth, Justice Gregory Hobbs, was retained in the last election for another 10-year term. Sorry.)

Rosen concludes: “Retention elections are usually a perfunctory formality. Judges are rarely voted off the bench. Perhaps this was the last straw, an opportunity to deliver a message to these and other would-be judicial activists.”

We are witnessing a slow-motion coup d’etat in Colorado by the Mullarkey Majority of the Colorado Supreme Court.  In disregarding the proper judicial obligation to uphold the law (NOT to make policy), the Mullarkey Court, unrestrained, is seizing more and more power. When these unjust justices rule from the bench, they really RULE from the bench…

The 2010 Supreme Court retention elections must not be - cannot be - a mere “perfunctory formality.”  Exercise your rights (while you still have them) - hold the unjust justices of the Mullarkey Majority accountable to the Colorado Constitution and the rule of law.  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 have policy decided by elected, accountable legislators (not unelected judges); 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 these unjust justices in 2010!

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold joined Mike Rosen on 850 KOA between 11:00 - 11:30 on Tuesday’s show (October 20th) for an impromptu discussion on the most recent outrageous and unconstitutional Colorado Supreme Court ruling, which asserted the authority of the courts (vs. elected representatives) to decide on school funding levels.  The discussion continued with other examples of the Mullarkey Court’s repeated assaults on the Colorado Constitution and taxpayer’s rights, such as the Mill Levy Tax Freeze case (which not only effectively raised property taxes, but also opened the door to millions in new taxes by removing constitutional protections on existing tax credits and exemptions) and the November Surprise ruling, which allowed several new taxes (i.e. Colorado Car Tax, Ritter Gun Tax) to avoid a vote of the people by being disguised as “fees” imposed by executive and legislative fiat.

Listen to the Mike Rosen Show podcast to learn more about the most recent Colorado Supreme Court power grab, and why you should 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 have a say in how you are represented, 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 your “NO” vote on retaining unjust justices in 2010!

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!

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.