Denver Judge Orders Restraining Order Against Senate Democrats Over Speedy Bill Reading

[rangerrebew]

 Denver Judge Orders Restraining Order Against Senate Democrats Over Speedy Bill Reading


Posted By Derek Draplin - Watchdog.org On March 17, 2019 @ 4:55 am 
 

Colorado Republicans notched a victory in their efforts to slow down the speedy movement of a controversial oil and gas regulation bill thanks to a temporary restraining order granted by a Denver judge.

Denver District Court Judge David Goldberg issued a temporary restraining order Tuesday against Senate President Leroy Garcia and Senate Secretary Cindi Markwell for their use of five computers to speed-read through a 2,000 page bill.

Senator John Cooke, R-Greeley, on Monday requested that House Bill 19-1172 be read on the Senate floor as a way to delay the quick movement of Senate Bill 19-181, sweeping legislation regulating the oil and gas industry. HB 19-1172, an unrelated bill dealing with recodifying statutes, is over 2,000 pages and was expected to take several days to be read in full.
 

URL to article: https://freebeacon.com/issues/denver-judge-orders-restraining-order-against-senate-democrats-over-speedy-bill-reading/

[Smokin Joe]

Denver Judge Orders Restraining Order Against Senate Democrats Over Speedy Bill Reading


Posted By Derek Draplin - Watchdog.org On March 17, 2019 @ 4:55 am 
 

Colorado Republicans notched a victory in their efforts to slow down the speedy movement of a controversial oil and gas regulation bill thanks to a temporary restraining order granted by a Denver judge.

Denver District Court Judge David Goldberg issued a temporary restraining order Tuesday against Senate President Leroy Garcia and Senate Secretary Cindi Markwell for their use of five computers to speed-read through a 2,000 page bill.

Senator John Cooke, R-Greeley, on Monday requested that House Bill 19-1172 be read on the Senate floor as a way to delay the quick movement of Senate Bill 19-181, sweeping legislation regulating the oil and gas industry. HB 19-1172, an unrelated bill dealing with recodifying statutes, is over 2,000 pages and was expected to take several days to be read in full.
 

URL to article: https://freebeacon.com/issues/denver-judge-orders-restraining-order-against-senate-democrats-over-speedy-bill-reading/

This is about SB 19-181, a particularly damaging measure for the oil industry in Colorado. Well over 200,000 well paying jobs are in the balance, and a significant chunk of State revenue.

[txradioguy]

This is about SB 19-181, a particularly damaging measure for the oil industry in Colorado. Well over 200,000 well paying jobs are in the balance, and a significant chunk of State revenue.

If the ads running here in Colorado Springs are to be believed...the people voted this measure down back in November...but the Dems in the Senate had a midnight meeting and voted to overturn the will of the people.

Once again proving that no matter the state they reside in...Progressives don't give a damn about what the people want.

[Fishrrman]

"HB 19-1172, an unrelated bill dealing with recodifying statutes, is over 2,000 pages and was expected to take several days to be read in full."

Please forgive me for asking such a stupid question, but...

Why does ANY law bill from ANY state in the Union need to be 2,000 (TWO THOUSAND) pages long...?

[Free Vulcan]

Wihle it sounds like the bill is pathetic and the judge may be right, does the Judicial have the power to tell the Legislative to conduct it's business?

[Hoodat]

Wihle it sounds like the bill is pathetic and the judge may be right, does the Judicial have the power to tell the Legislative to conduct it's business?

The judge is well within his judicial rights.  Here is what the Colorado Constitution says:

https://ballotpedia.org/Article_V,_Colorado_Constitution#Section_22

Every bill shall be read by title when introduced, and at length on two different days in each house; provided, however, any reading at length may be dispensed with upon unanimous consent of the members present. All substantial amendments made thereto shall be printed for the use of the members before the final vote is taken on the bill, and no bill shall become a law except by a vote of the majority of all members elected to each house taken on two separate days in each house, nor unless upon its final passage the vote be taken by ayes and noes and the names of those voting be entered on the journal

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The judge is well within his judicial rights.  Here is what the Colorado Constitution says:

https://ballotpedia.org/Article_V,_Colorado_Constitution#Section_22

Every bill shall be read by title when introduced, and at length on two different days in each house; provided, however, any reading at length may be dispensed with upon unanimous consent of the members present. All substantial amendments made thereto shall be printed for the use of the members before the final vote is taken on the bill, and no bill shall become a law except by a vote of the majority of all members elected to each house taken on two separate days in each house, nor unless upon its final passage the vote be taken by ayes and noes and the names of those voting be entered on the journal

None of what you wrote answers the poster's question.

Legislative is NOT policed by judicial.

[Smokin Joe]

None of what you wrote answers the poster's question.

Legislative is NOT policed by judicial.

It is if the Legislature is not following the rules. (Constitutionality issue)

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It is if the Legislature is not following the rules. (Constitutionality issue)

A judge has the power to over-rule what the elected representatives approve?

Know where in the Colorado Constituion that exists?
Don't think it does in the US Constituion.

[Smokin Joe]

A judge has the power to over-rule what the elected representatives approve?

Know where in the Colorado Constituion that exists?
Don't think it does in the US Constituion.

They are not following their own rules.
He is holding them to their own procedural rules, established by them.

By doing so, he is forcing the legislature to follow procedure, which slows down the process to perform as designed to give the legislators time to become familiar with the legislation they are voting on.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

They are not following their own rules.
He is holding them to their own procedural rules, established by them.

By doing so, he is forcing the legislature to follow procedure, which slows down the process to perform as designed to give the legislators time to become familiar with the legislation they are voting on.

I understand all that.

But where is the power given that allows a judge to do that?

In federal courts, that power was not given the courts explicitly by the Constitution.  It was deemed to be so by the same court who assumed it in Marbury vs Madison.

Pretty convenient, to give the interpretation that benefits yourself.

Like quoting God in the Bible as 'I Am'.

[Restored]

In short: The Legislature can pass anything they want but one judge can overturn it.

[Smokin Joe]

In short: The Legislature can pass anything they want but one judge can overturn it.

They have not passed the bill, they were BYpassing reading it as required. That is what the judge stopped.

[the_doc]

@IsailedawayfromFR

They have not passed the bill, they were BYpassing reading it as required. That is what the judge stopped.

The Denver judge was clearly responsible to take up the case that was handed to him and to slap down the legislature--not for the legislature's violation of its "own procedures" but for explicitly violating the Colorado Constitution, which specifies the tedious process of reading the bill.

The judge was "policing the legislature," but only by enforcing the State Constitution that they were defying.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@IsailedawayfromFR
The Denver judge was clearly responsible to take up the case that was handed to him and to slap down the legislature--not for the legislature's violation of its "own procedures" but for explicitly violating the Colorado Constitution, which specifies the tedious process of reading the bill.

The judge was "policing the legislature," but only by enforcing the State Constitution that they were defying.

I understand all of what you are saying.  It does not answer the fundamental question, however:  Does a judge have the authority you cite within the Colorado Constitution?

It is not clear that the US Constitution gives the federal courts that right.  It is only declared in Marbury vs Madison that the Supreme Court, not inferior courts, has that right.

Since the Supreme Court made the declaration, it is assuming its own authority.  Try as I can, I have yet to unearth where the other two branches have formally confirmed that the Supreme Court and any other federal courts have the exclusive right to interpret our Constitution. @the_doc

[the_doc]

I understand all of what you are saying.  It does not answer the fundamental question, however:  Does a judge have the authority you cite within the Colorado Constitution?

It is not clear that the US Constitution gives the federal courts that right.  It is only declared in Marbury vs Madison that the Supreme Court, not inferior courts, has that right.

Judge Goldberg is a State judge, not an inferior (District or Circuit) federal judge.  It seems to me that M vs M is not applicable in this case. 

(If a state judge is not allowed [much less required] to uphold his state's Constitution, then that state's Constitution is not legally enforceable.)   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Judge Goldberg is a State judge, not an inferior (District or Circuit) federal judge.  It seems to me that M vs M is not applicable in this case. 

(If a state judge is not allowed [much less required] to uphold his state's Constitution, then that state's Constitution is not legally enforceable.)

One more time: I am not an imbecile who does not know a federal court or judge from a state one.

I simply stated the federal issues of deciding Constitutionality.  I do not know Colorado's issues.

Does a state judge have the explicit right within the Colorado Constitution to declare a constitutional issue?

I an one who does not automatically believe a judge is omnipotent on all issues.

Why does this simple question cause so much confusion? @the_doc

[Smokin Joe]

One more time: I am not an imbecile who does not know a federal court or judge from a state one.

I simply stated the federal issues of deciding Constitutionality.  I do not know Colorado's issues.

Does a state judge have the explicit right within the Colorado Constitution to declare a constitutional issue?

I an one who does not automatically believe a judge is omnipotent on all issues.

Why does this simple question cause so much confusion? @the_doc

Are you saying no one has the authority to enforce the Constitution of the State of Colorado?
The people could pick up whatever is at hand and march on the chamber and force the issue, or...

I suppose the Governor could send in the National Guard and force the Legislature to follow Constitutionally Mandated procedures at gunpoint...

but an injunction seems somehow so much more civilized.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Are you saying no one has the authority to enforce the Constitution of the State of Colorado?
The people could pick up whatever is at hand and march on the chamber and force the issue, or...

I suppose the Governor could send in the National Guard and force the Legislature to follow Constitutionally Mandated procedures at gunpoint...

but an injunction seems somehow so much more civilized.

I believe fundamentally that judges have way too much power.  I question at all times whenever they exercise power that is not evidently given them by our laws.  Is this state judge exercising power reserved to him by the Constitution of the State of Colorado to rule on Constitutional matters? Maybe, but perhaps it is not really his to exercise, and is deeming he has the power.

I am one who believes our Founders never meant that the Judicial was ever meant to be the ultimate arbitror of the fundamental law of this country, the Constitution.
 
A Supreme Court solely placed this in its own hands in the landmark Marbury vs Madison.  I can find no record any other branch has formally endorsed this interpretation.  Perhaps they have, but that is not Constitutional either.

A Supreme Court that is the ultimate authority on what the Constitution says can over-ride any decision made, including those against it.  It is omnipotent and untouchable.

And now we have lesser federal judges who deem themselves also with the power to rule on constitutional matters.  Something not at all provided for in that same Constitution, as even M vs M ruled that only the Supreme Court can interpret Constitution matters.

Is this the same framework within the state of Colorado?

[Smokin Joe]

I believe fundamentally that judges have way too much power.  I question at all times whenever they exercise power that is not evidently given them by our laws.  Is this state judge exercising power reserved to him by the Constitution of the State of Colorado to rule on Constitutional matters? Maybe, but perhaps it is not really his to exercise, and is deeming he has the power.

I am one who believes our Founders never meant that the Judicial was ever meant to be the ultimate arbitror of the fundamental law of this country, the Constitution.
 
A Supreme Court solely placed this in its own hands in the landmark Marbury vs Madison.  I can find no record any other branch has formally endorsed this interpretation.  Perhaps they have, but that is not Constitutional either.

A Supreme Court that is the ultimate authority on what the Constitution says can over-ride any decision made, including those against it.  It is omnipotent and untouchable.

And now we have lesser federal judges who deem themselves also with the power to rule on constitutional matters.  Something not at all provided for in that same Constitution, as even M vs M ruled that only the Supreme Court can interpret Constitution matters.

Is this the same framework within the state of Colorado?

This is an unusual case, in which the legislature is not following the Constitution of the State.

Let me ask you, what authority would you seek? How would you handle this?

(Keep in mind they are rushing past this huge bill to get to one which will predictably cost the State 230,000 job and billions in revenue. )

Injunctive relief, short of harsh action by the citizens is the only option (unless the Governor intervenes).

Two options are potentially violent. One is not.

The court has ruled that the Legislature has to follow the Constitution. I'd find that refreshing, in this day and age, rather than have a fit about it.

I generally agree courts have too much power, that they have usurped the functions of other branches of government, but the court in this case is not legislating, they are ruling that the legislature is not performing in accord with the law (the State Constitution), which courts do, as a matter of course--rule on whether or not someone or something broke the law.

I would say they are well within their purview in this instance.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

I understand all of what you are saying.  It does not answer the fundamental question, however:  Does a judge have the authority you cite within the Colorado Constitution?

It is not clear that the US Constitution gives the federal courts that right.  It is only declared in Marbury vs Madison that the Supreme Court, not inferior courts, has that right.

Since the Supreme Court made the declaration, it is assuming its own authority.  Try as I can, I have yet to unearth where the other two branches have formally confirmed that the Supreme Court and any other federal courts have the exclusive right to interpret our Constitution. @the_doc

It seems to me that's not a question for the other two branches, but for the States, as they are the parties to the compact.

As far as the CO issue, I have no idea, I just hope SCOTUS keeps it's nose out of it.  This is CO's problem, and none of the rest of us' business.

[Smokin Joe]

It seems to me that's not a question for the other two branches, but for the States, as they are the parties to the compact.

As far as the CO issue, I have no idea, I just hope SCOTUS keeps it's nose out of it.  This is CO's problem, and none of the rest of us' business.

Exactly. A Colorado judge rules on the actions of the Colorado Legislature, under the Colorado Constitution.

A Colorado State matter, and not an issue for SCOTUS.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

This is an unusual case, in which the legislature is not following the Constitution of the State.

Let me ask you, what authority would you seek? How would you handle this?

(Keep in mind they are rushing past this huge bill to get to one which will predictably cost the State 230,000 job and billions in revenue. )

Injunctive relief, short of harsh action by the citizens is the only option (unless the Governor intervenes).

Two options are potentially violent. One is not.

The court has ruled that the Legislature has to follow the Constitution. I'd find that refreshing, in this day and age, rather than have a fit about it.

I generally agree courts have too much power, that they have usurped the functions of other branches of government, but the court in this case is not legislating, they are ruling that the legislature is not performing in accord with the law (the State Constitution), which courts do, as a matter of course--rule on whether or not someone or something broke the law.

I would say they are well within their purview in this instance.

I never said anything on the merits of the case.  My original post was a response to a question regarding the authority of judicial to over-rule the legislature.

Would it have made any difference were this a federal court and the judge ruled possession of firearms were not permitted under the US Constitution?

Was making a point to explain the power grab Judicial has been on for years.  Some believe automatically that a judge is sacrosanct in all matters in front of him, and the court is the final say. It is not the case always.

I am particularly irked when a single judge can over-rule an entire branch of government, whether it is legislative like the Colorado legislature or Executive like the President.  Is this power actually contained within any law?  Did the US Constitution permit a single judge to allocate budgets passed by Congress or to stop actions by the President to defend this country? 

Don't know about Colorado, but federal guys are selected, not elected, and the lifers are so rarely removed from office that for all purposes are permanently ensconced in position of power.

As a result, who is watching the henhouse?

As an example, why are the courts involved here?  Note 4 judges declared that we have no right to detain illegals.  HUh?
Supreme Court: Criminal Aliens Cannot Escape Detention by Dodging Federal Agents
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/19/ssupreme-court-criminal-aliens-cannot-escape-detention-by-dodging-federal-agents/

[Smokin Joe]

I never said anything on the merits of the case.  My original post was a response to a question regarding the authority of judicial to over-rule the legislature.

Would it have made any difference were this a federal court and the judge ruled possession of firearms were not permitted under the US Constitution?

Was making a point to explain the power grab Judicial has been on for years.  Some believe automatically that a judge is sacrosanct in all matters in front of him, and the court is the final say. It is not the case always.

I am particularly irked when a single judge can over-rule an entire branch of government, whether it is legislative like the Colorado legislature or Executive like the President.  Is this power actually contained within any law?  Did the US Constitution permit a single judge to allocate budgets passed by Congress or to stop actions by the President to defend this country? 

Don't know about Colorado, but federal guys are selected, not elected, and the lifers are so rarely removed from office that for all purposes are permanently ensconced in position of power.

As a result, who is watching the henhouse?

As an example, why are the courts involved here?  Note 4 judges declared that we have no right to detain illegals.  HUh?
Supreme Court: Criminal Aliens Cannot Escape Detention by Dodging Federal Agents
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/19/ssupreme-court-criminal-aliens-cannot-escape-detention-by-dodging-federal-agents/

Take your straw men away and look at this one case.

The judge is upholding the Constitution of the state he is a judge in, by ordering the legislature to follow the Constitutionally Mandated procedure in presenting and voting on a bill.

It really is that simple. You not only didn't answer my questions, you came back with a lot of irrelevant hoo haw about federal cases. This isn't. It is a State issue.

I am particularly distressed when someone has a fit about a judge ordering the legislature to actually follow the State Constitution. That sort of injunctive relief is what the court exists for. It isn't making new law, it isn't throwing law out. It is upholding the existing State Constitution. If you won't look at the merits of this case, you don't know what, in this instance, you are talking about--and you missed my opposition to MAKING LAW from the bench upthread.

The judge did not overrule the legislature, he made them follow the rules--their rules.
Perhaps you would prefer if legislatures everywhere were allowed to just run roughshod over their respective Constiutions. Oh wait, we already have that--especially in Congress.

Instead of being happy about a court ordering the legislature to adhere to the Constitution of that State, you're throwing an ongoing fit. What damned good is a Constitution if you aren't going to go by it?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I understand all that.

But where is the power given that allows a judge to do that?

In federal courts, that power was not given the courts explicitly by the Constitution.  It was deemed to be so by the same court who assumed it in Marbury vs Madison.

Pretty convenient, to give the interpretation that benefits yourself.

Like quoting God in the Bible as 'I Am'.

If you are arguing the validity of judicial review/Marbury v. Madison in general, then fine, you have a theoretical point.  Although that argument was lost more than 200 years ago, and not a single court since that time has found it to be invalid, nor has any state or the federal government moved to invalidate it by constitutional amendment.  So most of the country seems quite happy with judicial review even if you don't.

Once you accept the general premise of judicial review, the judge was right on the money here.  It's a very unusual provision of the Colorado Constitution.  Most such provisions are likely to be internal rules (like the filibuster) adopted by the legislative bodies themselves, and there's a decent argument that courts have no business enforcing them.  But in this case, where it is an express provision of the Colorado Constitution, the judge did exactly the right thing.