DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 04, 2010 01:44 AM UTC
50 Comments
At least, the court’s press release doesn’t mention it.
http://www.courts.state.co.us/…
I got that from Ashby’s article, which looks like it’s been since changed to refer to the selection committee.
Would this be Ritter’s first appointment to the supreme court? I couldn’t tell from the articles but I may have missed it.
and Coats and Eid are Owens appointments. This would be Ritter’s first.
Wow, Romer had (at least) 5 appointments! It pays to be governor for a long time.
This sticks it to John Andrews and his fellow goons at Clear the Bench. They were hoping to wipe out a full majority of the court this fall. Now, whoever is chosen to fill mullarkey’s seat will serveuntil 2012 and go for a retention vote in that year.
I’ve known Justice mullarkey many years. I admire her service. Don’t forget, she even cast the decisive vote that brought the death penalty back to Colorado.
She was fair and courageous. But watching the physical strain of her job, I think she made the decision that is best for her. I’m not surprised…many of us thought she would leave after getting the new judicial complex authorized. And they’re digging dirt on it now.
Mary Mullarkey was their number one target. I doubt she would be retiring if she thought she had a chance of being retained.
“Clear the Bench” had zilch, zero, nada chance of succeeding. Andrews has tried the same tactic in other years with zilch, zero, nada success. Andrews has totally jumped the shark.
The only time judges and justices lose retention votes are when they have had some sort of personal shenanigans or an outrageous, widely reported decision.
No, Mullarkey wasn’t at all scared of that silly old John Andrews – and shame on you for suggesting other than the truth: that she is voluntarily retiring after serving with distinction for years despite great personal sacrifice.
Or are you calling John Suthers a liar?
Exactly.
Sure, Suthers can be a liar for all I care.
Clear the bench doesn’t have a prayer of even coming close to removing anyone.
If you do, which I don’t see how you could not have known given the fact that it was mentioned in this thread, then you’re a moron and a jerk.
If you didn’t know, I’m sure an apology would suffice.
Typical Democrat. This has nothing to do with her MS, it has to do with her blatant disregard for constitutional law.
You wouldn’t know constitutional law from a parking ticket.
Presuming two decades of service while suffering from MS wasn’t a good reason to retire, what would she have to lose to wait until November to see if CTB was effective? Oh, wow, she’d be forced to retire, at worst.
Or, in all probability just keep her job.
Stop looking at your pee pee’s and thinking you have power.
Are you kidding me? If she waits until thin, it is very possible that the new governor, not Ritter, would get to appoint her replacement, and she doesn’t want there to be any chance that that governor will be a Republican. I like Malarkey a lot, but she is politically savvy and knows what to do.
Sticking with that, don’t read more into my observation than what is there.
then in all probability she could have continued to serve. Nobody had said she was out because of MS before she made the announcement.
Stop looking at sex pee’s comments and thinking you have power.
of an event being caused by something completely unrelated to it reminds me of the story (possibly apocryphal) of a cult in the early 60s which, at the direction of their leader, prayed to be saved on judgment day, which the cult leader identified as a specific and imminent date. When that date came and went without event, the cultists all rejoiced at what they considered conclusive proof of the power of their prayers.
When people start with arbitrary certainties, that interpret everything in their light, perceiving support for their prefered beliefs where none exists. It is the diametrical opposite of reason, and it is the characteristic that defines you.
Let’s hope the clear the bench folks have the same level of insight as BJ and Lib, who see the loss of an ability to vote against this seat as a “clear victory”
is your utter stupidity!
I love it.
You not only bet on the Titanic against the iceburg, you went double or nothing on the instant replay;-)
What do you expect, I guess?
see above — that Mullarkey’s retirement PREVENTS clear the bench from replacing her this cycle, because her Dem replacement won;’t be voted on til ’12. Because he called you on blatant ignorance (declaring a setback ot be a victory), you of course ignored it.
If Mullarkey had stood for retention election, and lost, wouldn’t Ritter be the one to appoint her successor anyway? Assuming she resigned immediately after the election?
I’m not sure we’ve ever had a supreme court justice defeated since we went to the “Missouri Plan” in 1966. Knowing Mullarkey as I do, I think she would have served out the remainder of her term, two months or so.
post as Chief Justice for as long as she has, despite her advancing MS is truly remarkable.
I have seen her deliver more than one of her State of the Judiciary addresses and she has been quite physically frail in the last couple.
The appointment process, which gives the Governor a choice from the top three candidates proposed by a blue ribbon panel, is one important reason why Colorado’s courts are less politicized than those of many other states. The process both removes people without judicial temperment from the pool of potential nominees and makes the position paletable to good candidates who don’t have extensive political connections and lack the time, aptitude and money to mount election campaigns.
Living in chronic pain I undersand, too.
Here’s a woman who’s been a judge on the state supreme court for 23 years. 16 of those years, she had to deal with MS. Oh, and before that she practiced law for 19 years.
Do you REALLY think a couple months of shouting by a small group of people is going to influence her? REALLY?!
More proof of the fact that they are idiots.
One thing that has not been mentioned is that this is likely to guarantee a Dem Chief Justice next year when redistricting and reapportionment comes out. Since Ritter does the appointment, regardless what happens with Clear The Bench (and I agree with the commenters who say that they are likely to have absolutely no impact whatsoever in November, just like in the past), there will continue to be a Dem majority on the bench.
About the only purely political thing that the Supreme Court Chief Justice does is appoint members of the Reapportionment Commission next year. Mullarkey withstood (admirably) a lot of criticism for her Dem appointments to that Commission in ’01. Highly likely we will see more Dem appointments from the new CJ in ’11, which will definitely have an impact on the political balance of the Commission!
… because that’d be a great idea, right?
I’m a certified paralegal. By definition, one of us is worth two (a pair) of lawyers.;-)
passed the bar, but deemed to have mental health issues that mad him unfit to practice.
Correlation with causation.