PPC Homepage

Nominees to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey on Colorado Supreme Court profiled in Denver Post (part 3)

by | 7:47 am, September 6, 2010 | 6 Comments

For the first time in the history of Colorado’s “merit selection and retention” process for placing and removing the occupants of judicial office, Colorado Citizens are being presented with substantive information not only on the three incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices who will appear on the November ballot, but also on the three nominees (the governor will pick one of the three) to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who announced in June that she would resign rather than be held accountable by Colorado voters this November).

Thanks to the increased attention on the Colorado Supreme Court this year, and the consistent efforts of the legal-affairs journal Law Week Colorado for longer than that, the public applications of the three finalists (complete except for removal of purely personal information shielded for privacy reasons - entirely appropriately) which include some relevant background on the candidates for judicial office - were made public.  The public applications may be viewed in their entirety on the Law Week website (”Governor’s Office Makes Public Applications Of Justice Finalists“) or downloaded to review in detail.

The governor’s office has even requested public input on the nominees - providing Colorado Citizens the opportunity to weigh in on who will become Colorado’s next supreme court justice; but act fast, the governor is expected to make a decision next week (”Speak Now, or Forever Hold Your Peace… Governor’s Office seeks public comment on Colorado Supreme Court nominees“).

The Denver Post - which, after noting in February that “Four Colorado Supreme Court justices face a tough vote in elections” was largely silent on this important issue until very recently (possibly in response to criticism that their [lack of] coverage may have been influenced by the fact that the Post is being paid $1.6 million per year as the Colorado Supreme Court’s current landlord) when an article acknowledged that “four state Supreme Court justices [may not] survive an attempt to remove them from the bench this election.”

Bygones.

Denver Post courts reporter Felisa Cardona has written up a series of profiles of the three finalists to become the next Colorado Supreme Court justice - the third and last of which (”Supreme Court Finalists: Candidate’s writings show clarity of thought“) appears in today’s (Monday) paper.

Clear The Bench Colorado commends the Denver Post for (finally?) shedding some light on the individuals who may next be elevated to our highest court.  We have called upon the Denver Post editors to join us in requesting greater transparency in the process by which the nominees are selected, as well - and most importantly, to join us in holding the incumbent justices accountable to the Colorado Constitution, the rule of law, and (ultimately) to the citizens of Colorado.

We The People can (indeed, as citizens, we must) hold our public officials - both elected and appointed - accountable.  Be a citizen, not a subject - get informed, then exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority”- (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice - soon to be 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 home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions - and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Category: Colorado Politics, Colorado Supreme Court, PPC, TABOR, Transparency
Tags: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Comments

  1.   james
      September 6th, 2010 @ 11:08 am

    I will be providing input supporting Prince. He has an engineering background as well as judicial experience. His activism seems limited to the backyard grill, which does demonstrate an artistic interest. I know from experience that the engineering mind tends to weigh issues more thoroughly than the musical mind. So, I am going with the engineer, not the musician.

  2.   Laura Victoria
      September 6th, 2010 @ 11:08 am

    The three nominees have refused to talk to the public, making the provided contact info on them a joke.

    No one should be complimenting DP on this. They are whitewashing these three nominees in pure puff pieces. It is a pathetic joke, meriting no compliments. Read the pieces on each nominee. You would think each one was the second coming, when surely that is not the case.

    If you could possibly be aided in your selections based on the DP articles, I’d love to hear about it. BTW – the last one was published today and Billy Boy is supposed to make his decision by Wednesday. This bogus process should not be applauded. It just encourages the DP in their support of their next tenant at their building.

  3.   Laura Victoria
      September 6th, 2010 @ 11:16 am

    James, I wrote my comment probably when you were finishing up yours. Prince did sound good. I didn’t like the fact he blew off three phone calls to him.

    Sounds like he’s a great BBQ time as the DP so enlightened us, and he is perfect and has no biases according to attorneys who appear before him (and when will we ever hear a practicing attorney say, “Judge X is a biased scumbag who screws plaintiffs in court every time”). Never.

    Really, this whole Punch and Judy play doesn’t matter. We don’t get to know the identitites of the 28 others who applied and failed to make the final three. We, the public, got no input at all into deciding on who would make the final three. Finally, Ritter Critter doesn’t care who we might prefer of the final three. After all, he is a particularly lame, Lame Duck.

    The facade of the judicial selection, retention, and discipline process in the Centennial State is worse than a joke. It goes far beyond the three “unjust justices.” Far beyond.

  4.   james
      September 6th, 2010 @ 11:52 am

    Laura,
    I cannot disagree with your criticism. I can only do what I can do right now with what I know right now.
    Jim

  5.   CTBC Director
      September 6th, 2010 @ 12:33 pm

    Laura –
    I would agree with your critique of the depth of the Denver Post profiles; they’re not terribly substantive, for the most part, although they do provide some level of insight into the personalities of the prospective justices.

    Substantive information on their backgrounds IS available via one of the links provided (listing their application packets), which is another first in the history of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” process.
    (http://www.lawweekonline.com/2010/08/governors-office-makes-public-applications-of-justice-finalists/)

    The main point is that at least SOME information is being provided to the public. Although significantly more transparency and accountability is needed – it’s a start.

    Comment (and encourage others to comment) on the DP articles, as well as on more reliable sources such as PPC and CTBC; showing interest (and demanding MORE coverage & transparency) is the only way to get this important issue out into greater public awareness.

  6.   Laura Victoria
      September 6th, 2010 @ 5:45 pm

    Matt:

    Not one critical word was said of any of the three – other than mentioning Monica Marquez’ youth. (I’ll take that negative any time). I don’t view it as a positive in the least because it fools people into thinking we are getting information when instead we are being fed propaganda.

    So while it does give us some info, it lulls the public into a false sense that they are being provided real info. They won’t speak to the press and they have no valid reason to be so demure. All three will be rubber stamps for Big Government. That’s my bet. That’s part of the job requirement.

    In court, the main truth seeking vehicle is cross examination – hard questions where the questioned party has no easy escape. These three won’t even permit soft questions, any questions. It was made clear to me the three have conspired to jointly refuse questions. What a hick, backwater, joke of a state Colorado is to permit this crap.

Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"

  • "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow

Featured Posts




  • When a young girl gets close to the truth about a long-forgotten mystery, a harmless adventure becomes a threat to the future of the independent commercial settlements on Mars.

  • Advertise Here!

    info-at-peoplespresscollective-dot-org

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta




  • Buy a Tea Party Poster!