President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

50%

50%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 06, 2007 03:13 PM UTC

Good Friday Open Thread

  • 70 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Let’s keep the sacrilege down to a dull roar today.

Tweet
Share

Comments

70 thoughts on “Good Friday Open Thread”

  2. April 6, 2007

    Giuliani Reaffirms That He Would Not Seek Abortion Changes

    By MARC SANTORA

    CHARLESTON, S.C., April 5 – Rudolph W. Giuliani, campaigning in South Carolina, firmly stated that as president he would not seek to make abortion illegal.

    Aware of the damage his position might do to him among some conservative voters, Mr. Giuliani said that if someone was inclined to vote against him solely because of his stance on abortion, then so be it.

    “I think abortion is wrong,” he said. “But ultimately, I think it is a woman’s right, a woman’s choice. And government should not interfere with it by imposing criminal penalties on people.”

    Mr. Giuliani, a Roman Catholic who once considered joining the priesthood, has wrestled with the abortion question for years, often expressing his personal opposition. But he has also long supported keeping abortion legal.

    From the moment he entered the presidential race, he has faced questions about whether his stance might hurt him with voters. When he campaigned in South Carolina two months ago, he said that, as president, he would appoint “strict constructionist” justices to the Supreme Court. Many saw that as a coded endorsement of the position of abortion rights opponents who want candidates to pledge to appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 court ruling declaring a constitutional right to abortion.

    At an earlier appearance Thursday in the state capital, Columbia, Mr. Giuliani said that was not the case.

    “The present state of the law on these issues is not something that I would seek to change,” he said.

    http://www.nytimes.c…

    1. I said that Rudi would be recanting his moderate views in order to the get the Repub nomination.  Apparently he won’t be doing that.  More power to him for that.

    2. You gotta give Rudy some serious respect for taking a stand and sticking to what he believes in.  Yet another reason I would vote for Rudy if Hilary wins the Dem nomination.

      1. Give me a break. He has said that despite his personal beliefs, he would appoint highly conservative justices to the Supreme Court. He is taking the stand that is required to give him a chance in the GOP primary. It isn’t what he personally believes. This doesn’t deserve any respect.

        1. and I will show you a loser. It can’t be done. You can be a Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich with no chance, or you can be someone who makes lots of trade-offs but can win.

          I’m not saying I’m thrilled that it works this way – but it does.

        2. The wink and nod move really irks me about Guiliani. Strict Constructionist/Textualist are the Scalia and mo-such-thing-as-privacy Thomas. Abortion is based on the premise of privacy starting with Griswald. If he is for it, but wants judges that will be against it, well, I dont want him. Watch abortion go out the window and sodomy laws return if Guiliani gets his “strict constructionist” on the bench.

        3.   It is not an inconsistent position.  His position is that if Roe were somehow overruled by the Supreme Court and legislative restrictions on reproductive choice became constitutional, and if anti-choice majorities took control of the House and Senate, President Giuliani would probably veto any ban on first and second trimester abortions.

          1. Giuliani said he supports the so-called partial birth abortion, saying that is ultimatly a woman’s choice. So, Rudy would veto all bills restricting abortion. The partial birth procedure is used in third trimester abortion.s

            I need a citation where Rudy says that “issue of reporductive choice is a legislative, not a judicial, perrogative.”  He may well have said it.  It is just circular reasoning.  The judicial decides what is and is not a judicial perrogative UNLESS the legislature restricts what issues the judicial could consider……an interesting strategy….one which, of course, no one would dare do in terms of abortion..

            Ironically, the only way that abortion would become soley a legislative and not judicial issues is for the legislature to affirm the ruling in Roe that a fetus is not a person and so there is no need  to protect a constitutional right to life from legislative action.  When GW is complete and we are all trending water….somewhere, someone will be debating abortion…

      2. Hillary’s 2002 vote to give the President power to use force in Iraq, if necessary, is vote she has refused to recant…..her explanation is nuanced and involved.  I believe that the only justification for that vote is precisely the argument which she makes…..the vote can Bush a diplomatic “stick” which, if used skillfully, could have prevented war.  Ironically, if the Senate had refused to give Bush that power, the United States could have been left extremely vulnerable in any international negotiation, to say nothing of the possibility of of inviting another attack….

        However, I disagree with the decision…I think the invasion was immoral….

        1. is just a political trick by Obama.  He’s said he wont go negative so he can’t attack her even though he really wants to so like a good politican he talks about that vote when he really means Hillary.  I mean if he really was that upset about that one vote why isn’t he mentioning all the other Senators who voted for it?  The fact is its done and can’t be taken back.  Obama can say he told us so if he wants but he wasn’there so its easy to second guess from the sidelines and to me that is an act of cowardness.

          1. Obama was against the war when it was a very popular war.  His was a courageous stand.

            I appreciate that nonDemocrats want to get involved in democratic inparty back and forths….because democrats are infinitely more fun that republicans…..but you might, from time to time, mention that you are not a Democrat

            1. 1) its easy to be against the war when you don’t have to vote on it.  Since he’s been in the Senate he has voted for the war every chance he gets

              2) What makes you think I’m not a Democrat???

              1. …on a meaningless gesture resolution while in the Illinois state Senate along the lines of the Tupa-Gordon resolution. 
                  Anyone check to see if the Illinois legislators weighed in on the issue?  Or is foreign policy at the state level exclusively a Colorado perrogative?

  3. From a religious/spiritual perspective, I think GF offers a lot more venue to be humble, think about what Jesus did, his teachings, etc.  Easter, presuming the dogma is true, is self-serving. It’s less about Jesus, in reality, as it is about benefits to “Me!”

    1. I’m a Catholic and I still try to learn from each holiday by observing its historical meaning in current times. However, some people have forgotten the meaning of Good Friday and the reason to observe. Most religious holidays such as Easter, Christmas, Valentines Day, Halloween, and St. Patricks Day  have been turned into consumer holidays rather than days of reflection.

  5. Christ sakes, the guy has just totally divorced himself from reality…

    Cheney Reasserts al Qaeda-Iraq Ties As Pentagon Report Dismisses Link
    Associated Press
    Word Count: 375
    WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al Qaeda links to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

  6. http://www.forbes.co…

    I understand the recess appointment process to bi-pass congressional oversight, but is there precedent for appointing a person after they had already been shot down by Congress?

    I guess with the Bushies it only takes enough money and smear to win your way into government.

    1. There are so many things no president has done before Bush because a lot of our system is based on the leaders acting in a reasonable and responsible manner. Not perfect but constrained.

      Bush/Rove on the other hand push to the limits of the actual law, and then at times even go past that. They are definitely violating the spirit and intent of our system as a whole.

    1. It appears to be nothing more than a forum for some random guy named Sean Harrington to bitch about Judge Tidball and other Jeffco judges.

      A useless site.

      1. Heaven forbid anyone bitch about a judge -they’re all “honorable,” of course.  If I hadn’t checked out any other pages on the site other than whatever Cuervo was looking at, I would’ve thought it was useless too.

        1. All the ones I read, which were almost all given how few pages of content there are, are about Sean Harrington bitching about this judge or that one.  I didn’t find them useful. Oh, the link to Myhre’s site was useful, granted.  So, yes this site is useful, not for its content, but for its links to OTHER sites.

          thanks!

          Also, I didn’t say the author of the site is forbidden (by heaven or by other entities) from bitching about judges.  I simply gave my opinion as to the value of his bitching.  And his bitching is the lion’s share of the site (his silly “memos,” etc.)

          1. On one of the pages, they claim that Colorado state is trying to shut the site down (or at least browbeat them into self-sensorship).  It must be because of this guy Harrington’s silly memos or one of the other ranting idiots or -maybe- because the site is so crappy, that folks from the A.G.’s office, the state grievance board or the judicial branch can’t seem to quit logging in to see what else has been posted?  Who is this guy, Harrington, anyway?  From what I’ve read, he’s some poor loser, who’s been cut off from his daughter for however many years but he doesn’t give up.  Why doesn’t quit his bitching, his silly memos & lawsuits and just go away and be a deadbeat dad like a lot of other fellas?  Is one little girl worth all that headache (for judges or anyone)?

            1. From what I’ve read, he’s some poor loser, who’s been cut off from his daughter for however many years but he doesn’t give up.  Why doesn’t quit his bitching, his silly memos & lawsuits and just go away and be a deadbeat dad like a lot of other fellas?  Is one little girl worth all that headache (for judges or anyone)?

              I do not know anything about this guy’s specific gripe. But having been through the same thing and having had to go to court twice over BS my ex-wife was pulling with our daughter, I disagree totally with your statement above.

              From personal experience I can tell you that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, more important than my wife (present one) and three daughters.

              And so yes I expended every effort to be an integral part of my daughter’s life and help raise her and watch her grow up into a wonderful person.

              The idea of ever walking away from that is beyond comprehension. And yet the courts in my experience also (and my case was JeffCo too) just don’t give a rip about the father or about a child having both parents in their life.

              So if someone is sticking it to the family judges in JeffCo, my first impulse is to figure they have a legit point.

              1. Thank you!  Then you appreciate that I was being sarcastic about Harrington (and Spofford and Thorup and Stadnyck and Samora and Hatton and Lewis and Himmler and the rest of these disenfrachised folks, who’s stories are out on KnowYourCOURTS.com). Perhaps, more than anything, the Web site exposes (in ways never before done) what a few Colorado gov’t agencies (Attorney Regulation Counsel, Commission on Judicial Discipline, State Grievance Board) are really doing  –or rather, not doing.  Cuervo (and may be others) says the site is useless. Perhaps. It’s useless if you don’t give a rip about how your tax dollars are being spent on perpetuating a lie that these agencies (and others) function as some kind of check or balance on the judiciary or enforce legal ethics in Colorado.  The Web site is useless until and unless one of us finds our rights (our home, our children, our future, our freedom) left to the caprice of an unscrupulous judge. 

            2. All the claims in the memos you cite depend, for their interest, on their credibility (including the claim that the state gov’t gives a shit about the website).  I see nothing to give the memos credibility.

              Every litigant who loses a case blames the courts.  It’s par for the course.  See John Andrews.  That this losing litigant chose to sprinkle his bitterness onto several web pages is not newsworthy.  It’s utterly pedestrian.

              Like every losing litigant, he provides only his side on the story and asks the world (successfully, it appears, in your case) to simply take his word for it……despite the fact that a neutral decision-maker, with all the facts, has decided against him.  No thanks.

              1. You obviously haven’t looked at the knowyourcourts.com Web site (you know, the one you said that has no content, but has thousands (not hundreds) of pages of court documents).  The site contains scores of separate *different* cases and transcripts that, unless they were doctored in PhotoShop, incontrovertably show that the decision makers that you put your faith in are, indeed, not neutral.  And, with regards to the Harrington-litigant (one of scores featured on the site), the Court of Appeals decided two appeals in his favor and he has two more now pending.  Go figure.

                1. The transcripts don’t show a lack of neutrality…at least not the ones I’ve read.  Again just because you lose doesn’t mean the world is biased against you.  And, since you brought it up, the fact the court of appeals may decide a case in your favor does not prove that the lower court was biased against you either.  It simply means that the lower court made a legal error.  Not that I’m granting as true your allegation that Harrington won some case on appeal (I didn’t see it on the website, but it could be there somewhere, I suppose).  But even if so, it doesn’t prove a grand conspiracy.

                  This website bears much resemblance to those of R. Stanley and the constitutionalists (and their “militia”) who allege a wide-ranging conspiracy amongst law enforcement and the courts to deny them all of their God-given rights.  Puh-leeze.  The courts have neither the time nor the interest nor the ability for such an enterprise.

                  Sometimes the courts are right, sometimes they are wrong.  That’s the unavoidable reality.  But to engage in emotional rumor-mongering about the neutrality of the system is neither rational nor supportable.

                  1. Dude, you’re not making any sense.  On the one hand, you claim that the site has no substantiation for the “silly memos.” On the other, you explain that posting documentary evidence proves nothing.  Well, if your standard is a written confession from someone, I guess we should all adopt your conclusions: Yeah, sure the Web site looks like Stanley’s. And chickens have lips and pigs fly. Unlike Stanley’s site and other gripe sites, I notice that this one doesn’t tell anyone what to think  –it leaves the conclusions for the readers to draw. Continuing with my sarcasm, sure the courts are staffed by competent judges (former attorneys -and we all know that attorneys set the finest examples of honesty and ethics), who are merely underpaid, overworked, would rather be doing something else and really have no interest in solidifying power.  That, of course, is why Sandra Day O’Conner is romping around the country claiming that the “independence of the judiciary” is under attack like never before. (http://media.www.smu…).  In L.A. Times columnist Max Boot’s 1998 book on arrogance and corruption on the American bench, he coined a term, “gavelitis”: “A judicial selection process that often results in bumbling candidates being chosen.  A judicial oversight process that rarely punishes judges for even flagrant misconduct on the bench.  Put those together, and what do you get?  A breeding ground for a disease I call ‘gavelitis.’  This dread disease can be caused by wielding a gavel in the line of duty, and its symptoms include advanced pomposity, pathological sanctimoniousness,  congenital self-importance, and aggravated eccentricity.  Judges suffer from this disease grow so arrogant, so out of touch, so remote from everyday life that they think the normal rules of good behavior and human decency don’t apply to them.  Its not hard to understand how judges can fall prey to this malady.  After all, when you wear a black robe, everyone–staff, litigants, even haughty maitre d’s– bows and scrapes and genuflects before you.  All your witticisms are suddenly hilarious, all your observations astute, all your suggestions readily adopted. Your fellow man invariably addresses you as ‘Your Honor’ or ‘Judge.’  Nobody’s ever mean to you and if they are, why, you can lock them up. You think, How unusual … How wonderful … How fitting.  That kind of obsequiousness is heady stuff in our rude, egalitarian society.”

      2. Ya gotta love it when somebody posts an emphatic opinion to the entire WORLD based on poor reading comprehension skills and the ASSumption that the first amendment doesn’t apply to anyone who engages in critical commentary about government corruption.

        Have another shot, Cuervo71 . . . you probably make more political sense when you fart loudly while in a drunken stupor.

        1. How exactly were my reading skills poor?  Do you have any specifics?  Perhaps you would like to put them in a super-fabulous “memo from Sean Harrington”?  Can’t wait!

          I love when people like you show that you have little understanding of the First Amendment.  I didn’t say, nor do I believe, that the First Amendment “doesn’t apply” to this crappy website.  But ….now pay attention here… the First Amendment does not immunize this vapid website from my criticism (or anyone’s criticism). 

          The website is silly and crappy.  And my saying so doesn’t trample anyone’s constitutional rights.  Have a drink to that!

          1. Hey, I have an idea… if Cuervo71 has any kids, lets take them away from him just because “I” think he is a moron and doesn’t matter that I have no proof of any wrongdoings.

            Keep in mind, “I” just think he is a moron, and since I have the keys to the kingdom and I don’t like him because he disagrees with me I am going to fuck him royally.

            The CO family court psychologists and alike are nothing more than second rate hacks, with huge egos and love being on power trips. If you ever had the displeasure of meeting one of these simpletons, you will know what I mean.

            In a nutshell, the courts are where the money is and because no one wants to do it, they have a money making machine. So basically we have a bunch of ambulance chasers who think they know what is best for your kids, after meeting and talking to a parent for about 2- 4 hours. They decide they can play god, and proceed to ruin the lives of kids, along with financially ruin the parents and then go buy lavish houses, planes etc.

            They have also passed legislation to protect them, because they know they are morons. The whole system is a joke and so Cuervo71 spouting his ignorant views shows he is clueless and is most unimportant to this discussion.

            1. I’ve been through the JeffCo family courts too and my two trips through were very much in line with what you said. (My second time I took that into account and had a lawyer who knew how to play the system.)

              But I don’t think calling Cuervo71 a moron leads to a discussion of the issues or helps make your point. Intelligent reasoned people can disagree.

              And the root issue I think is people who have not been through the system assume the judicial system is fair and reasonable. But like any system left alone with no real oversight, it’s screwed up pretty bad.

              – dave

              1. I agree that, until and unless you go through it, the general public either doesn’t care or assumes that the supposed impartial finder-of-fact is neutral and makes a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute.  Instead, it’s a profession that’s replete with favoritsm, cronyism, corruption, sweetheart arrangements, greed, fraud, power consolidation, etc., etc.  Sure, there are many good, decent, conscientious judges out there, but I’ve only known or heard of a handful.  I’m promoting that Web site, because it’s about time that we have something to prove or disprove these contentions, other than just brightly colored rhetoric on some gripe-site.

                  1. You didn’t miss anything. I never established a connection to the site, other than the fact that I was calling attention to it.  I could be a site visitor that appreciates what’s there. I could be a site contributor. I could be the site administrator. Hell, I could even be Harrington, that guy, who writes the “silly memos!”

                    1. You could be any of those things, and not being up front about it is dishonest.

                    2. Authors of BLOGs, contributors to BLOGs or readers of BLOGs are under no moral or ethical obligation to reveal their identities or whether they’re affiliated with some cause or another.  That’s probably why 90% of us (here) are using an anonymous handle.  Whether I’m connected to that Web site or this Web site is irrelevant to my views as to whether I’d recommend the Web site to someone else or my views regarding alleged corruption in the courts or alleged lack of legal ethics.  May it suffice to say that I’m not a member of the NRA (or some “militia” connected with Rick Stanley, as Cuervo suggested). Isn’t it curious that once someone starts questioning the credibility or ethics of his government, that he must be a militia whacko?

                    3. of course, I’m one of the few here willing to blog under his real identity. I think everyone should be willing to stand behind their opinion if they are going to post.

                    4. It does matter which role you have, at least in the context of the debate going on. Given that you are protecting your identity with a handle (and I’d say it’s more like 99% of polsters doing that here) you can be honest with no personal consequence, especially if the site’s registration is set up to protect the administrator’s personal identity also. No, you’re not obliged to reveal this role, but it will bolster your credibility if you do.

                    5. This isnt the bar. You are not going to have your license to blog revoked because you shamelessly pushed a cause you support. And no one is asking you to reveal your identity, but you sure seem eager to carry a lot of water for this (those) guy(s). Your unwillingness to talk about your connection, or lack thereof, has made it abundantly clear that you have at least a tacit connection to the site. Blogging is centered on trust. I trust the judgment of Cuervo. If for no other reason than the fact he likes tequilla. You, I dont know. Your contributions  thus far have been centered around a site that purports to show some guy getting screwed in divorce court? Why should I care?

                    6. What  -are you going to now care if I tell you what my “connection” is?  If you don’t care, already, it’s a moot point. I can carry water for whomever I want to and don’t have to explain my background for why I support this site or that site.  I can share anything with anybody at any time without having to justify my “connections” and then you (or Cuervo or Tom or Ted or Bill) can make your own conclusion. Or, you can just save yourself some time and trust Cuervo’s judgment, because he likes tequila.  If his (or your) conclusion is that the site is crap or that the information on the site is fabricated, then so be it. I can’t take that away from you and won’t try.  No one’s going to make you visit or revisit that site (or this one). And no matter how much you don’t trust me or think I’m a “militia whacko,” I don’t think I need to worry that you’re going to start a campaign to discredit KnowYourCourts.com as a slanderous propagandist site with fictitious evidence produced in PhotoShop because you wouldn’t have any basis to do so.  In other words, no, I’m not going to to reveal my connections, if any, beyond what must already be obvious.  It simply isn’t relevant to whether the site has something to offer or not.  Five more of your can join in tell me it’s relevant, but that still won’t make it so.  Quite simply, the site’s credibility or value is unconnected to my credibility.

                    7.   The other thing I would say but, thought of after replying already, is in response to your comment about trust.  I just signed up yesterday (Friday eve.) to share this Web site. Consequently, I don’t know any of you any more than you know me.  Maybe, after I’ve contributed and been accepted for a few months, I’ll open up and tell more.  Trust is earned, not presumed.
                        Having said that my sole purpose was to share a resource, the truth is, a lot of folks have found already found it useful.  Attorneys have used it in preparing for their cases.  The State has been monitoring it and at least one agency has already asked for certain content to be removed (and, in doing so, misrepresented what the applicable statute provides).  The keyword searches that lead to the site indicate that it’s doing its job, by providing information regarding certain individuals and processes that, until now, was never available before (e.g., how the Commission on Judicial discipline really processes complaints; how the State Grievance Board really processes complaints; how the Attorney Regulation Counsel really operates and has exposed the lobbying, financing and rule-making behind the thriving divorce industry).  There is no other source on the Web today where you can get an inside peek into how this really works.  On the other hand, if you log on to these agencies Web sites (or certain individual’s professional Web sites, if they have one), you’ll find a very different representation of what services they provide and how they provide them.

      3. What proof would you require of Harrington’s claims, if the actual court files are insufficient?  There is nothing wrong with demanding proof, but there is a lot wrong with being manifestly unrealistic.

        If judges are taking bribes and playing favorites in our courts, the Constitution and rule of law become null and void.  Does this not disturb you?

        I know … keep your head in the sand until it happens to you.  Who will be around when you are on the business end of the government’s wrath?

        1. In a sudden inspiration of curiosity, I just took the liberty of reviewing your past 50 posts, spanning a period of 11 days. Most, appropriately, received no responses (as one poster said, few have the patience to bother doing so). Of those that did, only one person ever agreed with anything you said (Sir Robin, on one ocassion, who also admonished you on another ocassion for your flaming, misrepresentative, response to my post on nationalism v. globalism). On the other hand, the following people not only disagreed with you, but assertively expressed in their responses, in one way or another, that they consider you a complete and utter jerk (a few others, not listed here, merely politely disagreed with something you wrote):

          thecoloradokid
          One Queer Dude
          Aristotle
          DavidThi808
          Cuervo71
          Mr. Toodles
          Car 31

          All or most of those listed above chimed in that they think you were completely outclassed in our debate.

          In that 11 day, 50-post period, other than Sir Robin, (unless I missed any other exception in my scan) no one ever expressed any support for anything you ever posted.

          The following is the complete list of people who expressed support for your arguments in our debate, or for your contention to have “won”:

          I can’t speak for anyone else, but it is certainly not my goal, in presenting you with these inconvenient impositions of the reality that exists outside your own, rather isolated, self-admiration, to persuade you to stop posting: I do indeed believe that all voices that want to chime in should do so. My goal, rather, is to try to convince you to stop being such a jackass when you do choose to post. You seem to be just about the only person on the blog who has any other assessment of the personality expressed by the tone and style of your contributions.

  8. He puts in 10X the effort of most of us here and when he’s gone it’s a big lack.

    Since I don’t have the time to put in the effort he does on research I’ll just sum it up – all of you on the right are wrong 🙂

      2. and thanks for your concern, it is nice to be missed. I’ve been on vacation and pushed away my temptation to log on at a library and see what was up in Colorado Politics.  Kind of a non religious Lent, where a person gives something up just to prove they can.

        Did I miss anything?

          1. I hear polls give the edge to Romney and Giuliani over any Dem contender.  Of course, Tancredo will probably run as a third party candidate and leach votes from the R candidate, creating a Nadar/Perot effect, this time benefitting Hillary.

            2. Once the Dem candidate starts pounding the Repub candidate on Iraq I think it will be all over for the Repub.

              They can’t run away from the Bush legacy – he was true to the conservative wing of the party.

  9. Sean Harrington is only one of thousands that stepped into the Colorado Family Judicial system ignorantly believing that one would find Justice there, as the name would imply. What the reality is, is that the family courts system is riddled with corruption and for years it has been ignored. Are Judges taking bribes? I don’t think you’ll find anyone on the website claiming a Judge took a bribe. But the reality is Judges do take bribes, pick up a newspaper sometime. But you’ll find others who will say that Child and Family Investigators and Parenting coordinators, etc. etc (I refer to them as Satan’s Advocates) are taking bribes, selling children like we’re in a third world country to the highest bidder and not a thing is being done about it. I am one of those. I did not lose my court battle. So I truly resent the statements made about Sean Harrington just being angry about losing. I would have to wonder what reason I have for being here then. Perhaps it’s because we feel that no Child, no Mother, no Father should have to endure through a system that is wholly corrupt. That perhaps it is time we demand that our  Family Courts stop lining the pockets of psychologists and undereducated “Counselors” while emotionally and financially bankrupting Colorado Families. The Judical system is “Court Appointing” recklessly and without regard to competence, truth or justice. Completely destroying what is left of already broken families. It has nothing to do with winning or losing. It has to do with a small group of people who still foolishly believe that SOMEONE has to do the right thing.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

49 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!