GOP lawmakers say state's high court showing political colors
By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published January 5, 2009 at 11:02 a.m.
Updated January 6, 2009 at 12:03 a.m.
Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey
A group of Republican lawmakers concerned that the Colorado Supreme Court has favored Democrats in recent decisions demanded Monday that the chief justice address the issue before the legislature.
Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey is scheduled to talk to lawmakers Friday about the state of the judiciary.
The lawmakers listed several court decisions they believe justify their concerns.
"Favoritism to political party, partisan ideology and results- oriented judging should not be an issue," said Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma.
"After looking at some of the court's recent decisions, we increasingly are concerned that the Mullarkey Court has abandoned its duty of interpreting the law and instead has embarked on a course of partisanship and political activism."
But Democratic Rep. Terrance Carroll, who will become the House speaker Wednesday, said Republicans should be worried about creating jobs instead of "manufacturing allegations against the court."
"I find it interesting that they want to try to trump up charges in what is one of the worst economic crises in history," said Carroll, a Denver attorney.
Mullarkey is one of seven Supreme Court justices. She was appointed in 1987 by Democratic Gov. Roy Romer and selected chief justice in 1998. Her office said she had received the letter but had no comment.
Although Republicans frequently point out that Mullarkey is a Democrat, judges in Colorado are nominated by a nonpartisan committee and appointed by the governor. The voters then decide whether to retain or reject the judges, whose party affiliation does not appear on the ballot.
About a dozen lawmakers joined with Gardner in signing a letter to Mullarkey.
"The role of the court is to interpret - not write - the law." the letter stated. "We are growing increasingly concerned that your court is acting in an overtly partisan manner."
The court cases the GOP cited include the 2003 redistricting decision and a recent decision to delay action on a property tax issue that impacts school funding.
Republicans believe the tax measure is unconstitutional.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
January 5, 2009
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
moss writes:
This appears to be a national trend. Typical response from dems...don't addess concern, change the subject.
January 5, 2009
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
opinionatedcolo writes:
What this is is another vain attempt by the Right wingers to try to distract voters from the real issues and blame everyone else for their problems. The redistricting opinion was clear and the U.S. Supreme Court did not see anything wrong with it. The other case is not even decided, just sent to the trial court for more findings. In other words, Gardener is complaining about a case where the Court has not even ruled yet. There is no support for these allegations, just an attempt to make the Court a political issue.
January 5, 2009
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
An independent judiciary is crucial to America's government and its checks and balances. As history shows us, this is frequently being challenged. Waa, waa Republicans and martyrs. If you dont' like a court's decision, you know what recourse you have: legislation or constitutional amendment.
January 5, 2009
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
kalonblake writes:
Maybe the issue isn't that the Supreme Court has made decisions favoring Democrats, but that the Repubican viewpoints on a majority of court decisions is counter to the law (and the will of the people) at issue. Given the outcome of the recent election, the Republicans might want to re-evaluate the basis for their viewpoints on just about everything. I know this sound completely implausible, but (gasp) Republicans just might be wrong much more often than they are right.
January 5, 2009
11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
JTTAAB writes:
oops, Hey look over there!
January 5, 2009
11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
I really wonder what these guys can accomplish? Mularkey will rationalize the charges against her and that will be that. Kudos to the reporter. When the Rocky is gone, the GOP will have no voice in Colorado.
January 5, 2009
11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
cdmdenver writes:
COLORADO STATE COURTS-THEIR OWN AGENDA!
Colorado State Courts for years have been biased
and unable to follow the rule of law.
Lower Courts are supposed to enforce the law,
not make up their own laws, but thats what typically
happens Judicial and appellate courts making up their
own laws and intrepretations.
Colorado Supreme Courts have the "Good Ol Boy Network"
you will not get Justice in Colorado Courts-Bias??
Thats the Colorado Supreme Court Motto!!
January 5, 2009
11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
fifty writes:
So, if a decision favors the Republican viewpoint, the decision merely "interprets the law" but if the decision doesn't favor the Republican viewpoint, the court is "embarking on a course of partisanship and political activism"?
This all boils down to the fact that the Republicans got wiped in the election and they have no weapons with which to battle. They can't successfully legislate. All they can do is whine to the public and make demands. Good luck with that.
January 5, 2009
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
INC writes:
fifty, Great post!!!
republicans are worried about non issues yet again. I am with Terrance Carroll the gop should be worried about the economy and jobs.
Possibly even an apology to the citizens of Colorado for how badly they (republicans) have messed things up.
January 5, 2009
12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
As far as I'm concerned, most of her " unbiased " decisions are full of Mullarkey....
We have NO SEPARATION OF POWERS in government today....
January 5, 2009
12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
mebcaux writes:
Most Republicans are not disturbed by bias in the judiciary, but by bias which does not favor them.
They are simply disturbed that the bias in their favor they achieved in the state and federal judiciary through Owens and Bush is being undone, at least to a modest degree, by Ritter and, soon, Obama.
Major contributors to both parties would not contribute as much as they do unless they were confident they might thereby secure more favorable bias in the judiciary through their cat's paws in Congress and state legislatures.
All too often, they succeed, as very few of those whom they appoint have the integrity to devote themselves exclusively to interpreting and applying the law in such a way as to protect the People from the predations of Big Government and Big Business.
There are noteworthy exceptions, such as Richard Matsch and John Kane, but they are a dying breed. The new generation are in many cases nihilists who think nothing of distorting and subverting the law to serve the interests of those responsible for their appointment. If they were otherwise, they would not be appointed.
When called upon to do so, they, like their legislative counterparts, more often than not go well out of their way to protect the interests of those responsible for their appointment, at the expense of the People.
Thus is Government "of the People, by the People, and for the People" routinely stolen out from under us by a "campaign finance" system that is nothing more than legalized bribery.
Mark Brennan
January 5, 2009
12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
666 writes:
It's absolutely fantastic that, despite knowing jack spit about the facts, conservatives band together to agree with the hasty assumption that there is favoritism toward Democrats.
"I dunno what's goin' on, but I bet it was them lib'rals that done it."
Pull your heads out, please.
January 5, 2009
12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Nice pun, punnisher. Too bad you don't offer anything to back up your claim that we have no separation of powers in government. What you're really saying is the govt isn't doing what YOU think it should do, notwithstanding the fact that Colorado and the United States belongs to all of us, and not just to you.
January 5, 2009
12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
I have no clue whether there is any bias going on with Colorado courts. But the request for an inquiry is legitimate whether it comes from the left or the right. The claims about "distractions" and Carroll's absurd claims about this being "manufactured" are without merit. And since when can't legislators pursue multiple agendas and issues at the same time - so the accusations about doing this at the expense of jobs and the economy are, in the words of a nemesis who I banter with regularly - a "strawman" argument.
At least when the GOP has issue with court rulings and the like we pursue it through proper channels and within the system. Consider Prop 8 and CA and how the left wing handle their bitter judicial and legislative and referendum defeats - with street theater, protests, occasional violence and property damage, and boycotts against people in other states so as not to piss off your friends and political allies down the street who you need later on.
January 5, 2009
12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
Sorry, but when you end up with " approval " from certain groups of a political type, you have to wonder why they approve the person in the first place.
We have had a ONE PARTY system of government for some time now...
But the SHEEPLE just don't realize it...
Check out R.O.A.R. for the details....8P...
January 5, 2009
12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
Liberalogy is a mental deficiency disease.
January 5, 2009
1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
DougH writes:
Republicans are complaining about the 2003 redistricting decision and a recent decision to delay action on a property tax issue that impacts school funding. The 2003 redistricting was the midnight trick led by John Andrews to change the congressional districts after they had already been set following the 2000 census. The court was completely correct in declaring this unconstitutional.
Republicans believe the tax measure is unconstitutional. So what, they can believe anything they want, the fact is, it is not unconstitutional for the school districts that exempted themselves from TABOR.
I see that Republicans are starting off the new session of the general assembly by starting their usual partisan complaining. Voters want the state legislature to work on statewide problems and resolutions, not spend their time with political bickering. Maybe after a few more election losses, Republicans will figure this out
January 5, 2009
1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
666 writes:
The only time Republicans complain about something being unfair is when they stand to profit from their complaints. I'm not saying there shouldn't be an inquiry...just that the Conservatives on this forum are so smug and self-satisfied about it that they're practically drooling through their computer screens.
If the right side of the aisle was the one suspected of gaining unfair judicial advantage (>cough< John Roberts >cough<) then the Cons would cry foul at least as much as the aforementioned Dems ("trumped up charges, manufactured allegations, distracting from the real issue", etc.).
It don't matter which foot the shoe is on, left or right, because it stinks either way.
January 5, 2009
1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
BetterEducated writes:
I have a question about how "just" the justice system is in Colorado as well.
In 2001, I sued Denver Public Schools over its mandatory labor union practices, claiming (among other things) that a certain classified-workers' union had never been elected by workers.
Judge Larry Naves at Denver District Court sat on the case until December of 2003 (yes, you read that right) without entering a single ruling. He then dismissed the case, without sending out a copy of his late-2003 Order until so far into 2004 that the Court of Appeals figured we had missed the appeal deadline and made us file a special motion to prove the Order was not submitted earlier as it should have been (apparently, the Clerk went on holiday leave and that was more important than our case).
After another two years, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling in part and remanded back to the district court. By this time, the year was 2006!! We were so disgusted and terrorized by the System at that juncture that we settled our claim against DPS for a mere $1,000.00.
Ever since that experience, I don't love Colorado any more and feel totally abandoned by my home state, my supposed government, and the judicial system I was taught to admire and honor. We've concluded that if you don't Know Somebody really BIG, you're just screwed in Colorado.
Considering my husband gave twenty-three hard years of his life to Denver Public Schools, we are sure hoping they got a good laugh out of all this, it ruined our lives and our children's lives and DPS is not sorry one bit about that.
The BigWig superintendent? - he'll get to be a Senator. My husband? - he'll get to be a janitor...then he'll get to die poor after a dedicated lifetime of service to a public school district.
Nobody in Colorado gives a darn about people at the bottom: We should all just die and get out of the way of those who still have lives and futures. Behind the great View and Sunsets, Colorado is a very ugly place to be.
January 5, 2009
1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
BetterEducated writes:
I want to add that, shortly before the ruling was entered by Judge Naves, I spoke with the lady who was then at the head of the Colorado public employees' union. She told me she would be seeing the Judge socially for the holidays, and darned if the ruling was not entered within just a couple of weeks after that conversation.
What a coincidence!
I was left with the strong impression that this lady told the Judge how to rule on our case, and that the ruling was intended to maintain the notion that "unions" at DPS do not need to have been elected by workers in order to act as their exclusive representatives.
What a world.
January 5, 2009
1:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
How interesting that the courts are NOT activist when their rulings come down in favor of conservative/GOP issues. GOP Yutzes!
January 5, 2009
2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Judicial activism is when your side loses.
Judicial restraint is whn your side wins.
January 5, 2009
2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
What is illegal coordination under Colorado’s tough campaign finance laws? It all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is. At least if you sit on the Colorado Supreme Court.
In its own Bill Clinton moment this month, a majority of the court’s justices resorted to a deeply political and morally bankrupt decision. Specifically, the Court ruled last Monday that the Poudre Education Association and the Colorado Education Association didn’t illegally coordinate with state Sen. Bob Bacon’s 2004 campaign by organizing two door-to-door walking campaigns where its members promoted Bacon’s candidacy and distributed his campaign literature.
While the court conceded that union leaders were paid to organize and conduct the walk campaigns...
We have to wonder if the court would have had the same sympathy for the unions if, instead of being unions they had been private businesses...
http://facethestate.com/articles/cour...
January 5, 2009
3:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
coloradohunter1 writes:
I figured they were biased when they ruled the anti-smoking law was constitutional because it was going to be changed to include the casinos, even though it originally excluded them.
January 5, 2009
4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
SDaedalus writes:
The CO Supreme Ct may or may not be biased, but there is nothing persuasive in the letter these Republicans sent to the Chief Justice that makes that case. (BTW, the letter is linked on left-hand side, and is a quick and unenlightening read) The letter cites CO Supreme Ct opinions, but does not explain -why- the law should have been interpreted differently, in a (presumably) less 'biased' manner. I get the idea that these Republicans don’t like the outcome, but without doing the heavy lifting required to demonstrate poor legal reasoning by the Court, these folks come off sounding like they merely prefer a different type of bias, regardless of quality of the jurisprudence.
The RMN reporting itself is pretty cheesy to boot: Contrary to the first line of this story, these Republicans didn't 'demand' anything. If anything, they come across rather timidly, with a rather polite request: “we ask you address the following matter.” The sequence of the article suggests that perhaps the Chief Justice will be speaking to the Legislature later this week in reaction to this request, without clarifying that this is a routine address that occurs every year. So in proper context, this “demand” is scarcely serious suggestion from the peanut gallery about what they’d like to hear when Mullarkey stops by for her speech. Sort of like the drunk guy yelling “Free Bird” at the local blues club, thinking he’s the funniest and most original guy in the room.
Again – CO Supreme Ct may or may not in fact be biased. But by default, I’m going to side with Rep. Carroll that this appears to be “manufacturing allegations” rather than a serious inquiry. For if bias on the CO Supreme Ct is such a pressing matter as some comments suggest, why in the world did this group of concerned Republicans do such a half-baked job in stating their case to the public/press/Court?
January 5, 2009
5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
socrates writes:
Truth has a liberal bias...
January 5, 2009
6:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
enough321 writes:
Interesting that Gardner and McNulty signed the letter...
http://www.coloradoforethics.org/node...
They want to blur the lines between ballot initiative and legislating, so why not between legislating and the judiciary?
How about writing some legislation instead of self-serving letters, you lazy piece of Republican? Oh, can't get it passed because it is either incomprehensible, stupid, or costly. Never mind.
January 6, 2009
10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
jbowen43 writes:
C'mon Cory, my friend, this kind of whining is below you.
January 6, 2009
3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
The property tax freeze IS ILLEGAL. By law, it increases revenue gained through taxes that didn't go to a vote before the public. If most of us know that, what is it the Colorado Supreme Court doesn't understand?
January 6, 2009
3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
I read some posts........ just curious to ask some of you a question. When the Republicans disagree with judges, you rant about it and basically say deal with it. But on the other hand, if judges make a decision not in your favor or that doesn't fit your ideology, you cry no different than those you're criticizing. Why is it fair if it suits your liberal concerns but it's not fair if it doesn't?