CO State Judicial Activism

This post strays into political activism but it is grounded in political philosophy, specifically the role of the judicial system. The state supreme courts are responsible for ensuring that the constitution of the state is upheld and the rights of its citizens are protected. This post documents and egregious setup of the violation of the rights of Colorado citizens as protected by the TABOR amendment to the Colorado constitution.

Lower courts, protecting TABOR, ruled that school districts and parents could not sue the state to increase educational funding, the Colorado Supreme Court today overturned the lower courts and granted standing to sue (Lobato v. State of Colorado).

The justices participating in the majority opinion have displayed extreme arrogance. What makes them more qualified than the state legislature and the citizenry to determine what is an adequate level of educational funding? What gives them the right to open the door for the violation of the state constitution? This is clear judicial activism targeting the destruction of Colorado's TABOR constitutional amendment. TABOR limits Colorado state and local governments from increasing spending faster than inflation plus population growth without voter approval. TABOR requires all taxes to be approved by voters. TABOR has kept Colorado's governmental budgets sound. The socialists and progressives of Colorado have been working for years to overturn TABOR, bit-by-bit, as it inhibits their ability to tax and spend.

The following justices voted for the majority opinion and should be turned out of office at the next opportunity:

• Justice Michael L. Bender (Subject to retention vote in November 2010)
• Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey (Subject to retention vote in November 2010)
• Justice Gregory J. Hobbs
• Justice Alex J. Martinez (Subject to retention vote in November 2010)

Although Justice Nancy Rice dissented in this case, she is identified as a judicial activist by Clear the Bench Colorado and is subject to retention vote in November 2010. Personally, I will need to research and consider her track record more thoroughly before deciding how I will vote on her retention come November 2010. It is clear to me that she is not in the same class as the 4 justices listed above. It is clear that if Governor Ritter wins re-election, he could easily appoint someone worse than Justice Rice. This will be a decision that will be made late in the election cycle for me. Please review her record and make your own decision (as with the other 4 listed above).

The ruling and opinion can be read here.

What You Need to Know About Socialized Health Care

This morning (17 Oct) I attended a Health Care Forum in Aurora, CO sponsored by 9 News and the Denver Post. That forum provided the motivation for another post on this topic. In addition to the Democrats from the Colorado congressional delegation mentioned below, Republican Representative Mike Coffman also attended. Mr. Coffman earns partial kudos for backing free market based reforms (albeit with flaws). However, he never made the moral case nor the constitutional case against socialized health care. In that regard, he finds common cause and limitations with nearly all Republican politicians.

Of course, the moderator for the forum never asked these fundamental questions (morality and constitutionality of the proposed health care reforms). Par for the course as he is part of the "main-stream media."

Here's a quick summary of everything you need to know about socialized health care fundamentals:

1. The socialists (Sens. Udall, and Bennet, and Reps. DeGette, Perlmutter and Polis) use pity stories about those who have suffered consequences from not having health insurance. The purpose of those stories are to use your compassion against you. To make you feel so guilty that you don't notice they are enslaving you. Stand up for your rights and freedom. Ask no one to live their life for your sake and never allow anyone to assert their need is a claim to one second of your life.

2. This is a moral issue. People that would never come to your home or mine and take our property by force, for whatever reason, will demand that a 3rd party do it for them. That 3rd party is the government.

3. There is no purpose for a government option other than for someone to get something paid for by someone else. Forget any other rationalization you hear. (That is why I insist on calling it socialized health care. All proposals under consideration move us into socialized medicine.)

4. I am the one at the forum who called Senator Udall "Slave Master" as he used a pity story to justify his work to enslave us to provide for others. I stand by my statement. It applies equally to Bennet, DeGette, Polis and Perlmutter. I can have compassion and charity for people who find themselves in bad situations not of their own creation. But, ask me for my charity. Do not demand the government come and take what is mine for your benefit. If you do, do not be surprised when I hold you in the same contempt as a common thief.

Charity is a virtue because it is voluntarily given. Morality ends at the point of a gun. And, the government is wielding a gun.

An interesting side note that I will leave it to the reader to ponder:

Repeatedly, the socialists on the panel and, in particular DeGette and Perlmutter, referred to Mr. Coffman as their friend. Mr. Coffman acknowledged working with some of the socialist members of the Colorado delegation on a couple of legislative initiatives. However, I do not recall him referring to any of the socialists as friends.

What is the objective of the socialists in referring to Mr. Coffman as their friend? Do they seek to minimize differences between their positions and Mr. Coffman's? Do they seek moral equivalence? Why didn't Mr. Coffman see a need to do the same? Do you think the socialists were being honest in referring to Mr. Coffman as a friend?