Clear the bench Colorado

 

Four of the Colorado Supreme Court Justices are up for retention in the 2010 elections. The power and reach of the Supreme Court is far greater than most people within the state seem to realize. Judges are rarely a center of discussion when elections come around, and even the ballot "information" booklets fail to give any adequate review of the judge’s performance. So what is the importance of educating yourself on judges? What is the importance of voting on retaining judges that have been appointed to the Court? More importantly, why does the director of Clear the Bench Colorado want every one of those judges up for retention voted out of office? I had a chance to sit down and speak with the Director of Clear the Bench Colorado, Matthew Arnold, to retrieve the answers to these very questions.

Thomas Jefferson approached the judicial branch with great animosity and trepidation. He feared, through case law, the once harmless and impotent branch would evolve into a despotic and tyrannical arbitrator over the people’s rights. His fears are not completely unfounded, as we see courts across the nation delegate to themselves the role of implementing law and policy. As appointed defenders of the State Constitution, our justices are supposed to preserve the rights our Constitution guarantees us. And yet, too often, their “interpretation” is one of ideological activism rather than lawful conclusions.

Clear the Bench Colorado is a grassroots effort to persuade Coloradoans to vote against retaining the Supreme Court Justices in the next election. In an effort to utilize the opportunity handed to the citizens of Colorado every ten years, Matthew Arnold hopes to let the Supreme Court of Colorado know that we citizens of this great state will not be subjected to their activism any longer. I asked Matthew what encouraged him to adopt his current crusade. “I was upset about the “mill Levy” ruling that few people seemed to have heard about.” (A ruling that allowed tax property rates to grow, without violating TABOR. Click here for more information.) But it wasn’t about just that one ruling. As Matthew began investigating, he quickly found a number of cases where the Supreme Court had become key players in the limitation of our rights. In the case Barber v. Ritter, for example, the language of what constitutes a “fee” was essentially changed by the Supreme Court; opening the door for Ritter and the Congress to begin implementing “fees” at their discretion, rather than obtaining a vote from the people to increase taxes. In short, the Supreme Court of Colorado enabled the hostile circumvention of Colorado’s “tax payer bill of rights” repeatedly, and predictably. Ritter's repeal of the spending limit was supported by our Supreme Court; a fact that most likely contributed to Ritter's confidence in signing the bill.

And not all the cases have to do with the circumvention of TABOR.  In an example of how Judicial activism is widespread throughout the state, (City and County of Denver v. the State of Colorado) the District Court of Denver had determined the State’s preemption laws on certain firearm related statutes (state laws that over-rule municipal laws and ordinances) some-how did not apply to the city and county of Denver. As a result, the ban on certain types of firearms continues to be valid in Denver County alone. (More cases, including the Telluride "land grab," can be found at Clear the Bench Colorado's website.)

It was out of fear for this very type of abuse that Thomas Jefferson held such trepidation about the power of the judicial branch of government. “But in Colorado we are lucky,” Matthew explained, “Every ten years we have an opportunity to vote on whether or not we want to retain the judges.” And, he argues, that opportunity should be taken seriously in 2010. “Too many people buy the fiction that courts have the final say in all matters.” He explained. And he is right; the Supreme Court of Colorado is ultimately responsible to we the people of this great state. For that reason the opportunity for the general public to vote on their retention is extended to us.

But too many voters relegate the importance of evaluating judges to a casual dismissal. “Judges you have never even heard of are responsible for influencing your life and our laws.” Matthew explained. The role of the judiciary is not supposed to be one of ultimate arbitration or rule; rather, it was formed to help quell the tide of unlawful governance. But in today’s world the courts are often enablers of the congressional attempts to circumvent the will of the people.

In the spirit of Thomas Jefferson I reminded Matthew Arnold of the truth that “The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. . . And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force.” Here, in Colorado, we have the opportunity in 2010 to remind the Supreme Court, and the ideologues who hope to secure the activism on the bench for their own political agendas, that we the people are the ultimate arbitrators.

Clear the Bench Colorado can be contacted by visiting their website at clearthebenchcolorado.com (Donations will be greatly appreciated as they attempt to ramp up their exposure.)

Click here to view the Colorado Constitution. Click here to view the Taxpayer bill of rights. (TABOR)

To find more information on the original intentions and trepidations about the Court system in our country, please click here.

Michael will be continuing his analysis of the proposed Healthcare bill as the week continues. Please be sure to continue checking back.

To receive Michael’s articles in your email as soon as they are published, click on the “subscribe” option at the top of this article. For more information, or to contact Michael, visit conservativeproject.com