Judicial term limits
Re: “Judicial term limits ripped; Ex-governors, Owens slam idea,” Sept. 19 news story.
I have appreciated the excellent stories in The Post on the remarkable bipartisan position being taken by all the living Democratic and Republican Colorado governors – Owens, Romer, Lamm and Vanderhoof – opposing Amendment 40. The amendment seeks to limit the terms of the Colorado Supreme Court and appeals court judges to 10 years.
Republican Attorney General John Suthers and House minority leader Mike May also are saying “no” to 40, as are many conservative and liberal organizations.
Colorado is fortunate to have an excellent judicial system, which is widely recognized as one of the best in the nation. Our effective and accountable judicial merit selection process, established in 1966 and adopted by many other states, celebrates its 40th anniversary this year. Instead of politicizing and attacking our courts with an ill-advised constitutional amendment like 40, we should all be voting against it and taking pride in our successful development of a fair, equitable, accessible and non-partisan system of justice.
Ellie Greenberg, Centennial
…
Where do we get these myths, like the one of the independent judiciary? Judges are independent only in the sense that once you’ve got them, for all practical purposes, you can’t get rid of them.
They certainly aren’t independent of their party. For decades, the Colorado Supreme Court has been the long and strong of the Democratic Party.
Judges certainly aren’t independent of their school, economic class, or friends’ biases.
Gov. Bill Owens says we need consistency in judgments. Consistency in favoring the perp over the victim, one party over the other, government over the taxpayer is something we don’t need.
Cleaning house every 10 years is at best adequate, at worst corruptive.
Gary Hall, Denver
…
Re: “Colorado’s judiciary needs a reality check,” Sept. 24 Perspective article.
Kenneth R. Buck attempts to rally support for Amendment 40 by reference to the Colorado Court of Appeals’ recent decision upholding common-law marriage. How ironic. That decision showed clear judicial restraint, not the judicial activism and “insularity” that Buck argues justify the amendment.
The court first noted that our General Assembly’s passage of the Uniform Marriage Act specifically preserved “any otherwise valid common law marriage between one man and one woman.” The court also quoted the statutory provision that the English common law, the source of the uncomfortably low age of consent for girls, “shall be the rule of decision … until repealed by legislative authority.” Recognizing its limited role, the court concluded: “If common law marriage is to be abolished, or the requirements for entering into it changed, this modification must be made by the legislature, not the courts.”
Such judicial deference gave the General Assembly the opportunity to address the age-of-consent issue during the special session this year. Our system of checks and balances thus works fine. By contrast, Amendment 40’s automatic ouster of half of our state’s appellate judiciary (including five of seven Supreme Court justices) would harm that system.
Jim Witwer, Denver
…
Re: “Judicial term limits bad idea,” Sept. 23 editorial.
The Denver Post editorial agrees with the “gaggle” of past and present Colorado governors that Amendment 40 would undermine judicial independence and interfere with the efficient operation of the courts. Without judicial independence, what sort of government would we have, they muse. Ha! Judicial independence long ago went the way of judicial activism. Many judges don’t look at the law; they make decisions based on their own personal ideas and convictions. This judicial activism has taken away the people’s vote. Proposals presented by petition, voted on and passed by the electorate, are turned over by activist judges. The mischief-making of the most dangerous sort is judicial activism. Amendment 40 will empower “We the People.”
Fern Rossi, Lakewood
…
This ongoing attack on the judiciary may make for good politics in the short term, but in the long term I fear that it will undermine citizens’ faith in our judicial process.
There have always been disputes between individuals. One of the core strengths of our system of government has always been the reliance on our justice system and the widely held belief that, while not perfect, our system is generally fair. In the past, when a case went before a judge (or sometimes several judges) and was decided, the parties, while not always happy, generally accepted the results. If the judge ruled against you, it probably meant you were wrong. Now, it seems, there are those whose personal arrogance will not allow them to accept even the slightest possibility that they could ever be wrong. If they lose in court, it is not because they were on the wrong side of an issue, but rather that “activist judges” conspired against them. Their loss reflects “abuses of power in the judiciary,” rather than the more obvious possibility that their case simply lacked merit.
This dangerous practice is becoming a common tool among those pseudo-patriots who would claim to love our democracy while simultaneously working to undermine the judicial system that protects all of our freedom, all to serve their own petty political aspirations.
Rick May, Denver
…
While Amendment 40 may or may not be a bad idea, the Denver Post Editorial Board failed to provide any convincing evidence to support their position.
The Colorado Supreme Court thumbed their noses at the electorate of Colorado this year. Regardless of which side of the immigration debate you support, every voter should be outraged, as this court usurped our right to vote on a valid proposal.
The Post states Amendment 40 would make judges stand for retention more often. Good! Judges should be accountable for their conduct. Every judge should be subjected to the same performance review as the rest of society.
Richard Mizell, Pueblo
Global warming issue
Re: “Global warming? Them’s fightin’ words,” Sept. 24 news story.
The Post did its readers a disservice by asserting there is a great deal of scientific controversy about whether climate change is happening. Stating that greenhouse gases are accumulating at ever-greater concentrations in the atmosphere, creating deleterious changes throughout the world, is no more controversial than stating the sun will rise in the east.
The Post’s article unfortunately will leave some readers with the false impression that our profligate use of carbon-based fossil fuels has no consequences for the future. On the contrary, we are imposing an immoral and shameful inter-generational debt on those who will follow us. It is virtually impossible for this rapid release of carbon to have a positive impact. Would we expect a watch to keep more accurate time after a Hummer rolled over it?
Ronald L. Rudolph, Boulder
…
I was shocked to read that NASA climate scientist James Hansen would dismiss critics of the currently prevalent carbon dioxide-driven climate change orthodoxy as “noise” that will stop when the critics are dead. Perhaps we should kill any dissenters immediately, and let the carbon sequestration begin unfettered. After all, the future of the Earth hangs in the balance.
I think the points regarding the complexity of the climate system that Professors Roger Pielke Sr. and William Gray and others raise are worthy of consideration, and to dismiss them as the rants of crazy old men with one foot in the grave is not science but cutthroat politics.
Hansen and the so-called vast majority of climate scientists who allegedly agree with him need to prove the negligibility of the climate forcings and experimental errors that tend to buffer the dominance of the carbon dioxide forcing. Until that happens, I can only see them as Limbaughesque advocates – supremely confident in conclusions that are based on a foundation of quicksand.
Stephen Harelson, Lakewood
…
Given the recent report of the National Academy of Sciences that anthropogenic global warming is real and increasing, and the firm scientific consensus behind this conclusion, I was appalled that The Denver Post could run a front page-piece that implies a “debate” is still ongoing.
In truth, giving valuable column space to renegades and pseudo-skeptics like Roger Pielke Sr. and William Gray makes about as much sense as doing an article on the Holocaust, and providing prominent coverage of the “alternate” views of Holocaust deniers.
My point? In articles such as The Post’s, human global warming deniers – like Holocaust deniers – obtain an unearned gravitas, forum and respect (often via the media) they otherwise wouldn’t have acquired. This is apart from the added confusion sown in the mind of the public.
Let’s understand once and for all this debate is over, finito. Global warming is real, and all those who dispute it can be dismissed as “flat-Earthers” and crackpots. They don’t merit being taken seriously.
Phil Stahl, Colorado Springs
Denver’s architecture
Re: “Art museum addition,” Sept. 24 Open Forum.
Alas, you do us a service by printing letters from the aesthetically challenged, since it reminds us that average taste is lower than we’d wish. But please stop printing letters critical of the breathtakingly beautiful and exciting new extension to the Denver Art Museum.
At last we have a nationally known and admired Denver style, so let the complainers move to old cities like D.C. or Philly amid the derivative domes, cupolas, pillars and pilasters.
Ann Jamison, Aurora
Turning to small cars
Re: “Going small for the long haul,” Sept. 24 business news story.
Last Sunday’s business article on the DaimlerChrysler Smart ForTwo car reminded me of my old Geo Metro. But unlike the Smart car’s sticker price of $27,000, my Geo cost less than $10,000. Also, the Smart car’s in- city gas mileage of 40 miles per gallon is short of the 50 that my manual-transmission Geo consistently got. In weight, my Geo was about 1,900 pounds, compared to the Smart’s 1,609. And finally, the Smart’s two-adult capacity with no room to spare does not compare to my Geo, which sat four and, with the back seats down, could fully accommodate my 27-inch 10- speed bike. So what happened to the production of the Geo Metro, and isn’t the time ripe for its resurrection?
Kathleen Freeman, Aurora
…
I was delighted to read about the Brazilian Obvio. As The Post reported, the electric Obvio can drive 350 miles using only one charge. It is amazing (and infuriating) that this car exists right now and all we need is someone to bring it to our market.
So, over breakfast, it occurred to me that our public school systems should import Obvios and sell them to raise money for our schools. Forget bake sales; let’s sell electric cars!
Wendy Oldenbrook, Brighton
Working women
Re: “Women and careers,” Sept. 24 Perspective article.
Thank you, Dottie Lamm, for addressing the immature and unfounded comments of Michael Noer in Forbes magazine. Not only did you provide a thoughtful and honest response, you were able to provide a historical perspective based on your own experience.
Let’s face it, I don’t know a woman – single or married, with or without children – who does not work hard. Rhetoric by Noer and others only encourages a society where the value and contributions of women are diminished. Our world is also far more complex than the narrow thinking Noer expresses. Everyone faces decisions about how to develop the correct balance between work, family and outside interests. We are all working hard to decide what is best for ourselves and our families.
Elizabeth Kelsen Huber, Denver
Intel terror report
Re: “Spy agencies say Iraq war fueling terror,” Sept. 24 news story.
The New York Times’ report in the Sunday Post states that 16 U.S. intelligence services claim that our overall terrorist threat has worsened since Sept. 11.
Shouldn’t our first priority be to stop making terrorists? A few suggestions:
1. Stop supporting governments that resort to violence.
2. Regarding conflicts such as the Middle East, support U.N. positions seeking fair solutions.
3. Return to foreign policies of the ’50s and ’60s. We were internationally liked and welcomed back then.
4. Relax restrictions on foreign students. Their enrollment has dropped, and fewer Americans are going abroad, especially to universities like Cairo or Beirut.
5. Aim foreign aid at projects that support schools with broad education to compete with religious madrassas, create employment, generate small private enterprise, and improve agriculture. The choice of earning a living for one’s family or picking up a gun to risk fighting as a terrorist is rather obvious.
Terrorists are typically those driven to the wall by bullies. We must stop supporting (or being) the bully. What we spend every day destroying Iraq and supporting Israel’s conflict with its neighbors could better the lives of millions around the world and at home.
Norman Illsley, Fort Collins
…
The assertion that “fighting terrorism is what causes it” implies that ceasing to fight would cause terrorism to disappear. This is like saying pulling weeds in your garden is what causes them to grow. Or it is like saying big city crime is caused by law-enforcement efforts – therefore the best way to handle crime is to dismantle police forces. Would any sane New Yorker believe such a thing? Common sense tells us the absurdity of such assertions. But more ominously, it implies sinister motives for our society by those who advocate such dangerous steps.
Dave Petteys, Roxborough Park
TO THE POINT
Regarding electronic voting, does one need to be as old as me (77) to remember that mistakes and fraud can attend the use of paper ballots? Requiring their use, or punch-card ballots (remember Florida?), is no guarantee of clean elections.
William Putnam, Grand Junction
The elk are bugling, nights are crisp, it’s football season – and last weekend we passed 2,700 total deaths for U.S. servicemembers in Iraq.
S.R. Wells, Longmont
Bush’s own intelligence services now confirm what sensible people knew all along: The Iraq invasion has worsened the terrorist threat. It turns out Bush has sacrificed 3,000 GIs not for nothing, but for less than nothing.
Dan Lyons, Fort Collins
It’s been more than 1,846 days since a terrorist attack on United States soil. Good job, Mr. President. Evidently you’re doing something right.
Brian Brandfas, Parker
Regarding the impact of the Iraq war on terrorism, the Bush administration is once again rejecting and denying the findings of its own intelligence services. As Steven Colbert would say, “We don’t let the facts interfere with our beliefs.”
Bob Whitehorne, Denver
I make $29,000 a year. I would gladly accept an annual $500 additional tax on my income to pay for hunting down and deporting every single illegal alien in the U.S. and for putting the military permanently on the borders.
Linda Lou Roy, Snowmass
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-954-1331; Fax: 303-954-1502; E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 101 W. Colfax Ave., Suite 600, Denver, 80202
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
