Imperial judges need term limits

(John Andrews in the Denver Post, June 18) You thought Colorado judges were above politics, simply because we don’t elect them or label them by parties? Think again. The footsie with judges being played by Marc Holtzman’s campaign for governor is clearly political. The Supreme Court ruling to prevent a vote on services to illegal aliens is no model of blindfold justice either. We have a problem, Houston.

To start with definitions, let’s say that judging involves applying the law with consistency and restraint, while politics involves changing the law at will. As a realist, I see no way of entirely removing politics from our judicial system. So we need to build more restraint into the system, rather simply hoping judges will restrain themselves.

Judicial term limits are a way to do that. Human nature and ego being what they are, there’s a danger of public officials curdling like old milk if left around too long. The bacteria of power hasten it. Recognizing this, Coloradans have set term limits for elected legislators and executive officers. Unelected judges need them too.

I started working on this as a Senate freshman in 1999. Having now completed my allotted service (and cheerfully, since I see an advertisement for term limits in the mirror every day), I’ve proposed it as a 2006 ballot issue. As a columnist I will have little to say on it after today, but here’s a preview of the debate.

Initiative No. 90, which started petitioning last week, would shorten the virtual life tenure of state Supreme Court and Appeals Court judges to 10 years total – assuming an incumbent’s retention by voters after a provisional two-year term and the first of two regular four-year terms. Incumbents who have already served the limit would be done after the 2008 election.

“Life tenure” is a misnomer, some will object. Yet retention elections dismiss fewer than 1% of all judges who face them. Impeachment and recall of judges are constitutionally provided for, but almost never occur. Terms are long for the two appellate courts covered by No. 90, and the deference of voters to our black-robed judicial priesthood is high. What’s to prevent the curdling?

It’s in the appellate courts that the judicial imperialism of changing the law instead of applying it mostly occurs. No. 90 would therefore term-limit only them, leaving the district courts on a four-year retention cycle, open-ended. Too few top-notch attorneys apply to be district judges as it is. Would there be a shortage of good appellate applicants under “ten and out”? I somehow doubt it.

Opponents are saying this is payback for Andrews’ judicial defeats. Despite such ad hominem nonsense, voters get the last word. It’s true I believe the state Supreme Court overstepped when it supported leniency for murderers, takings from property owners, and a school monopoly unfair to the poor. But our petition campaign, Limit the Judges, can’t succeed unless lots of other Coloradans agree.

Big majorities did agree when we surveyed over 50,000 registered voters last fall. The status quo where many low-performing judges can stay on forever was disapproved by 87%. Judicial term limits as a remedy was approved by 78%. The Kelo decision against property rights was condemned by 95%, the ruling that took God out of the Pledge of Allegiance by 61%.

Although those outrages of judicial lawmaking occurred in federal courts, Colorado courts have matched them. There was the Denver judge who told a mom which church she could or couldn’t take her daughter to – a freedom-of-worship violation which the Court of Appeals let stand and the General Assembly shrugged at. And there was the chief justice who said when it comes to congressional redistricting, judges are part of the legislative branch. Wow.

Separate branches with none dominating the others, constitutions that mean what they say, and majority rule balanced with minority rights – these fundamentals of republican government must be reasserted by curbing judicial imperialism. The anti-democratic mindset of judges and lawyers, so well diagnosed by CU law professor Robert Nagel (National Review, Nov. 21, 2005) must be institutionally checked. Term limits for judges are one step.

TV, June: Gore should chill

The “Head On” debate between former state Sen. John Andrews (R) and former Denver councilwoman Susan Barnes-Gelt (D), seen daily on Colorado Public Television since 1997, began its June series this week. Andrews zinged the liberal hysteria over global warming, led by hyperbole-prone Al Gore. Other topics this month include Colorado judges coddling illegal aliens, alleged ballot-issue overload, Iraq after Zarqawi, and the Unity '08 splinter party.

1. GLOBAL WARMING: HOW REAL?

John: The great environmental bogeyman of the 1970s was global cooling. Today the bogeyman is global warming. The common denominator is hostility to capitalism, faith in government, media hype, and shaky science. Panic is not called for. The collapse of the Kyoto Treaty proves that. Memo to Al Gore: chill out.

Susan: The science in 2006 is much better than science in the 1970’s. That’s progress. Capitalistic countries like China and members of the European Union are profiting from energy-smart green technology. We’re nuts if we think wasting water, land and energy doesn’t have consequences. Is your head cooler in the sand?

John: Al Gore actually said it’s okay to slant the evidence in order to win his holy war against fossil fuels. Mainstream media are helping with his scare campaign. Experts like CU’s William Gray are punished for daring to disagree. Central planning trashes the environment. Look at the USSR. Free markets are more earth-friendly.

Susan: It’s not about free markets. Legislation protecting the status quo has inhibited innovation and profits for new technology. Your free market protects auto manufacturers (a tax credit for a giant SUV??), energy companies and corporate polluters. It’s the golden rule – the guy with the gold – rules – not the free market.

2. DEFEND-COLORADO PETITION TOSSED OUT

John: Illegal aliens continue flooding into Colorado. The cost to taxpayers is one billion dollars a year. A popular petition cutting off handouts to illegal aliens was halted by a horrible Supreme Court ruling. The justices were afraid voters would pass it. Gov. Owens should call a legislative special session.

Susan: Now that choice is off the table, Colorado Republicans are desperate for a wedge issue. Sadly and inhumanely, it’s going to be immigration – which is really requires a federal solution. If there’s a special session, the ill-conceived, poorly written, mean spirited amendment will be presented more accurately.

John: Our state must do its part, along with Congress, in taking down the welcome sign for this invasion of illegals by the millions. Illegal aliens hurt public budgets, family budgets, national security, national identity, and the rule of law. Shame on the state Supreme Court for encouraging them.

Susan: Truth in advertising. The bill title should say “Should any Coloradan the right to sue a school, church or hospital for providing services to an undocumented person?” Or “Shall an employer hiring an undocumented worker be fined and jailed?” That’s what Dick Lamm and Tom Tancredo concocted. It’s rubbish.

3. TOO MANY BALLOT ISSUES?

Susan: Colorado’s November ballot may be the longest in nearly 100 years – 15 referred and initiated amendments may qualify. Last time I checked the US was supposed to be a democratic republic. The Colorado constitution mimics Denver’s zoning code – a phone book on steroids – full of neither rhyme nor reason.

John: We’re fortunate that legislative power in Colorado originates with the people. Elected politicians have no monopoly of wisdom. I know, I was one. Citizen petitions are a good way to settle such as issues as the definition of marriage, illegal immigration, education policy, tax refunds, and judicial term limits.

Susan: The threshold should be higher for citizens to put constitutional changes on the ballot. As it is the legislature’s ability to meet Colorado’s needs is inhibited. Partisan political issues – whether it’s the definition of marriage or judicial term limits – don’t belong in the state constitution.

John: Citizen backlash is inevitable when out-of-control judges twist the constitution to devalue traditional marriage, as happened in Massachusetts and could happen here. Stronger constitutional protections are needed. Better restraints on the imperial judiciary are needed too.

4. IRAQ AFTER HADITHA & ZARQAWI

Susan: Dramatic events in Iraq offer opportunity for the U S to regain public credibility. The U.S. military justice system must address the massacre of civilians in Haditha swiftly and severely. The tracking and elimination of Zarqawi at his safe house is a victory for America and a democratic Iraq.

John: General Sherman, fighting for American liberty against the slave power, said truly that war is hell. But war remains preferable to slavery. In today’s Iraq, with Saddam gone, Zarqawi was Bin Laden’s man in Baghdad. Now he too is gone, and victory is one step closer. America must accept nothing less.

Susan: Perhaps the best thing to happen in Iraq is the news that Baghdad finally has a cabinet – including a Sunni Defense Minister. If Prime Minister al-Maliki can draw some of the dissidents into the mainstream government, a stable Iraq is possible. That’s how I define victory.

John: Liberals keep having to define and redefine. They said Al Qaeda was not in Iraq. Now they say the destruction of Al Qaeda’s prince in Iraq doesn’t matter. They said intelligence and police shouldn’t coordinate. But that very coordination recently saved Canada from its own 9/11. This is truly a world war.

5. UNITY PRESIDENTIAL TICKET IN 2008?

Susan: The founders of Unity ’08, the web-based, presidential selection effort, may be on to something. Both major parties are turning off mainstream America due to pandering to special interests and big money. The politics of polarization aren’t working and it’s time for an alternative.

John: This fantasy of a fusion ticket for President, dreamed up in Denver and nominated in cyberspace, sounds like a bad Warren Beatty movie. Retreads from the Carter and Ford administrations want to turn 2008 into that ‘70s show. Not funny. America is better off with Republicans and Democrats competing, not converging.

Susan: A civil, partisan debate is the best way to choose a leader. However, when partisanship sinks to irrelevant carping on both sides – it’s time for a new model. Extremists in both parties dominate and distract from the nation’s real problems – health care, the deficit, national security. It’s time for meaningful change.

John: You’re dreaming, Susan. Splinter movements like Unity ’08 are childish escapism. They sometimes trigger unintended consequences in a big way, as when Perot helped elect Clinton in 1992 and Nader helped elect Bush in 2000. In presidential elections, as on a date, three’s a crowd. I say no thanks.

Radio, June 11: Two Down

Join us on radio every Sunday, 5-8pm on 710 KNUS, DenverTo listen online from anywhere, click 710knus.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Saddam is on trial, and now Zarqawi is in eternity. Neither one likes it, we can be sure. We ourselves don't exult in it. But we take grim satisfaction in the mills of justice grinding those evil men, the enemies of liberty and law.

And we take added resolve to finish the job, to see that Bin Laden and Zawahiri are next, to win this world war by smashing the Islamofascist network sworn to America's destruction.

"Backbone Radio with John Andrews" has long insisted there is no substitute for victory in the battle of survival now confronting free peoples everywhere. Our show this Sunday will look at what's next after the decapitation of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. I hope you'll join us.

Congressman Curt Weldon (R-PA), a leader on national security, will be my guest. So will former US Senator Bill Armstrong, dean of Colorado conservatives.

I'll also talk with John Sternberg of Denver, who took a gun rights case to the state supreme court... CU Regent Tom Lucero, an ally of Hank Brown in university reform... and financial analyst Brian Ochsner, who blogs for us here at BackboneAmerica.net.

Tune in from 5-8pm this Sunday, June 11, on 710 KNUS in Denver and 710knus.com around the world. Call in with your two-cents at 303-696-1971. Or comment by email, during the show or right now, at backboneradio@aol.com.

There's nothing else quite like Backbone Radio, the most principled, most patriotic, most faith-based, most Colorado-proud spot on the dial. Tune in for another lively Sunday evening of fact, opinion, and insight.

Yours for self-government, JOHN ANDREWS

Partisan politics strengthens self-government

(John Andrews in the Denver Post, June 4) Nonpartisan politics is baloney. If you want to beef up self-government, its protections as well as its powers, you need strong political parties. You need parties that are fiercely competitive, yet able to compromise; principled yet pragmatic; cohesive yet diverse; law-abiding but lightly regulated. Today’s Republicans and Democrats meet this standard pretty well. By comparison with parties in other countries, or in America at other times, they meet it very well. Both parties could do better, however. And the drumbeat of elite opinion condemning “partisanship” threatens to march us in exactly the wrong direction.

These dry generalizations come to life, as the professor will demonstrate shortly, in such spectacles as the mating dance of President Bush and Senator Kennedy on immigration, the slugging match of Bob Beauprez vs. Marc Holtzman for governor, the success of the Salazar brothers, and the failure of public education.

But first let’s see why political parties are a good thing – and why powerful forces keep trying to marginalize them. Our American way, government by consent of the governed, necessitates citizens foreseeing what policies they are voting for, and knowing whom to reward or blame afterward. Parties provide that.

Parties brand their candidates with a distinct approach to governmental responsibilities ahead of an election. They marshal their elected members, legislative or executive, to carry out that approach while in power. Then at the next election they collectively face the voters for accountability on results.

In addition, the rivalry between parties serves a watchdog function to deter deception, corruption, or abuse of power. When these inevitably occur, the underdog barks and bites until the misbehaving top dog is reproved or replaced.

Two-party political competition in a representative republic like ours is noisy, messy, and imperfect. Yet it has proved admirably effective in terms of liberty preserved, prosperity expanded and shared, the common good and common defense upheld. An inelegant and sometimes ragged system, but who could object?

The self-anointed could object, and so could the self-interested; that’s who. Pretensions of “scientific” governance by experts, claiming to discern optimal policies, even to remold human nature itself, landed here from Europe a century ago. They set off a party-weakening trend that still continues. Open primaries, direct initiative, and nonpartisan local government are among the results.

Nonpartisanship is often not merely a banner of idealism, but a cloak for cynicism. When giant media companies preach that party motives are always unworthy and campaign money always dirty, their own clout increases while the credibility of Republican and Democratic organizations wanes. Coincidence? Probably not.

When incumbent politicians on both sides, abetted by the media, legislate campaign finance restrictions that hobble challengers and muzzle political speech by parties and interest groups alike (but not by the press itself), democracy takes a hit. And somewhere James Madison, author of the First Amendment, weeps.

Framing a constitution for a free society, said Madison in Federalist No. 51, involves a balance where “you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” Though dubious of political parties, he and the other Founders were soon swept up in them. Most scholars – the constitutionalists, anyway, if not the progressives – would agree the balance he sought has been strengthened ever since.

Consider, finally, my examples from the headlines. Party polarization is needed on immigration, where the coziness of a GOP seeking cheap labor and Dems seeking cheap votes gave us the amnesty bill. Party cohesion is needed as Holtzman battles Beauprez to succeed Gov. Owens; my fellow Republicans threatening to sit it out or go third-party only improve Democrat Bill Ritter’s chances.

A partisan growl is needed against the folksy pose of Sen. Ken Salazar and Rep. John Salazar, liberal Democrats under their centrist cowboy hats. Party branding is needed in elections for school boards, city councils, and RTD, which spend their ill-managed billions with far too little accountability.

Is the party over for American politics 2006? We better hope not. Democrats and Republicans thriving, along with Libertarians, Greens, and other small fry rising, are our best defense against misrule by the self-interested and self-anointed.