President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 11, 2010 07:08 PM UTC

A Sane Reply Would Really Help

  • 24 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

The Colorado Independent has the latest chapter in the strange, angry little spectacle that is John Andrews’ perennial judiciary disparagement tour. Keeps them busy:

Clear the Bench Colorado, a group seeking to replace Supreme Court justices at the ballot this November, was advised by Secretary of State Bernie Buescher’s office to register last spring as an issues committee even though the group originally filed as a political action committee, according to documents obtained by the Colorado Independent. Clear the Bench last week was the subject of a complaint filed by Colorado Ethics Watch, which is arguing that the organization is mis-categorized and, as a result, can collect unlimited funds in its effort to target the justices. It’s a reality that works against the specific wishes of Colorado citizens who voted to restrict the flow of money into judicial elections to limit the chance for corruption, according to Ethics Watch…

Secretary of State Spokesman Richard Coolidge said the election division office provides guidance to all groups filing as a committee in the state but added that the ultimate decision on how to file rests with each organization. “We provided guidance to help them make the final decision,” he said. “Obviously we wanted [Clear the Bench] to find an area where they would disclose their contributions and expenditures. In order to do that, they needed to say ‘Which way do we go?’ We said ‘Here is some guidance: It looks like this could fall on the issue committee side.’ We laid out our arguments and they made the decision to move forward on the decision.”

Coolidge explained that the office made the decision based on the fact that a question on a ballot is considered an to be an issue. Since retention appears as a yes or no question on the ballot, the Secretary of State’s office deemed Clear the Bench an issues committee.

Clear the Bench is targeting Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey and Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice for allegedly making rulings that go against the state constitution, particularly the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, in order to provide the legislature with the power to raise taxes.

So Colorado Ethics Watch believes that “Clear the Bench” should not be filed as an issue committee, but “Clear the Bench” can say in its defense that the Secretary of State advised them to do so. All fine and dandy, and as the Independent correctly points out the real decision here will be up to an administrative law judge, to decide which criteria a judicial retention election best meets.

But instead of cooperating in good faith, since there appear to be mitigating circumstances and all, maybe impressing reporters and other onlookers with their professionalism…well, we are talking about John Andrews’ bug-eyed crew, aren’t we? If you’ve got the time or inclination, you can read “Clear the Bench’s” rejoinder over at the People’s Press Collective–if you ever intend to take them seriously, however, we don’t really recommend it. The only thing we can figure is that “Clear the Bench” has a crazy uncle they keep locked away in the basement, except for occasional writing of press releases and blog posts. We think something similar could also be happening at the Pueblo Chieftain’s editorial board, but we’ll revisit that another day.

The bottom line is, you can’t convince the broader majority of people you are credible if every public utterance reads like a pamphlet from the John Birch Society. If you’re campaigning on something as serious as retention of Supreme Court justices, don’t expect serious people to be won over by weird, rambling screeds about “notorious leftist attack yap dogs.” And for God’s sake, never invoke Gandhi unless it’s really, really necessary.

Tweet
Share

Comments

24 thoughts on “A Sane Reply Would Really Help”

  1. I just want to say that Gandhi would have called John Andrews a human, too.  He should be treated with the respect he deserves.

    I can uncategorically state that I was not involved in any “left-wing attack machine (that) was arrayed in full force yesterday, in a concerted (coordinated?) barrage of allegations, insinuations, and misleading statements chock full of omissions.”  Therefore, since I wasn’t invited, it wasn’t the full force and it wasn’t coordinated with me, which, of course, means it was missing a really heavy hitter in the attack machine.  In fact, I’m not participating in the attack machine until I get my check from Mr. Soros.  (And, dude, I really need it soon, mortgage payment is coming up.)

    Really, why can’t we just get along?  Dems should just ignore these attempts to clear the bench and ignore all attacks because any response is always so mean to Daddy’s Republicans.

  2. Clearing the bench is a middle-of-the-road issue.

    District Court found that by freezing property tax rates, the Colorado legislature had raised taxes. Since more taxes were coming into local school districts, less had to be paid from the state.  That left more money for state spending.

    Treasurer Cary Kennedy said, under oath, that it was a tax increase.  Cary Kennedy has never seen a tax increase she didn’t like … err, love.  Remember TABOR does not allow a tax increase without a vote of the people.

    Originally, the suit was against the Department of Education.  Later, Bill Ritter jumped in because he has “friends in high places.”

    The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision.  The Supremes are totally in the pocket of the big government tax-and-spenders.

    The four Supremes who are making the laws are the ones up for retention this year.  This is a perfect time to put Colorado’s highest court back in its judicial position of interpreting the laws instead of making them.  This is our last chance for another ten years.

    Clear the Bench Colorado!

    1. It is extremism at its worst.

      The Colorado system of merit based appointments is the envy of many states.  Instead of basing decisions on competence and knowledge of the law, radicals such as clear the bench seek to politicize the law.

      Our court may make decisions you do not like, but that is not because they are in the pocket of anyone.  I would never say that the federal supreme court is in the pocket of big business despite their ruling in Citizens United:  I would instead say that they are ideologically to the right of me for the most part because four were appointed by Bush I, Bush II and Reagan.  After all, elections are supposed to have consequences.

      On the other hand Judicial elections, such as the ones in West Virginia, are rife with corruption.  In West Virginia Massey Energy, of the most recent mine disaster fame, spent millions of dollars to elect one of his friends who immediately upon election overturned a lower court decision and saved Massey Energy $40 million: $3 million to save $40 million?  That’s a good court if you can buy it.

      The professionalism of our courts, whether appointed by Owens, Ritter or Romer is amongst the best in this country and a few decisions that you disagree with for ideological reasons is not a reason to undermine what the founding fathers thought was fundamental to liberty: an independent judiciary.

      1. They could appoint who they like. It’s not our fault that the CO GOP sucks at electoral politics and haven’t gotten any appointees since Owens.

          1. And even VanderJagt’s own sister felt Auman’s sentence was excessive.

            Vanderjagt’s sister, Gail VanderJagt Rice, issued a statement Monday afternoon about the Supreme Court ruling :

               “Lisl Auman knew what was happening during the burglary and in no way helped the police. Her failure to cooperate led to my brother’s murder and for that she needs to serve a significant time in prison. More time than the 7ВЅ years she has already served.

               “I am opposed to the felony murder law and do not believe Lisl Auman should be in prison for the rest of her life, but she needs to serve significant time for her crimes. She is guilty.”

              1. Lisl Auman is not a legal analysis, or legal issue or even a legal theory.  Auman was just a person who was convicted of a crime.

                I personally think the appeal didn’t address the correct issue, but that is not the supreme court’s decision, that is the appellant’s decision.  I do think the supreme court applied the law correctly and I, like the murdered officer’s sister, think that felony murder is a bad law.

                  1. Don’t circumvent the law for purely political purposes. If the ideology you’re trying to supplant onto the courts is so great, you should be able to get the voters to get your side back in power again.

                    1. I’d rather take advantage of the political fee-vah going on right now and flush the toilet.

                    2. At least you’re honest about supporting this despite the fact that it’s obviously a circumvention of the justice system.

                    4. By any objective measure our courts are not “liberal” (whatever that means in a judicial context).

                      I am afraid of all the things you have said, this is the one that I disagree with most.  An independent judiciary is a foundation of liberty so profound, that the founders kept the English system basically intact because they were so satisfied with it.  

                    5. The court is politicized now.  They’re not all bad, just Bender, Martinez, Rice, and Mullarkey.

                    6. or are you just repeating what someone told you.

                      I thought so.

                    7. Auman.

                      “Tax Freeze”

                      Want more?

                      I honestly can’t wait until these fuckers are out of work.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

96 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!