« Let's Poll! | Main | Mark Paschall Q&A »



Although Ward Churchill drives me up the wall, RMN's "crusade" has been pretty tacky. Pols should put RockyWatch in their blogroll.


I always wondered what Denver Post reporters and columnists did all day. I guess the have their hands full writing copy for Rocky Watch.

Lisa Jones

RockyWatch is my own personal unbalanced tirade. I'm not a journalist, just another unhappy customer who can type. Thanks for the shout, Stygius.


Altho Ritter and Bridges are honorable men and could be very capable governors, in the Democratic political "underground," people are still seeking a candidate who will put the "pizazz" into the 2006 elections. A dark horse candidate who excites these Democrats is Andrew Romanoff. Many admirers described him as Kennedy-esk, full of charm and wit, and as a public speaker, can wrap the audience around his finger. He's pretty smart, too. Plus, Andrew does retail politics better than anyone in the Colorado Democratic Party. COPo's latest polling reflects that really no candidate for gov is setting off fireworks....perhaps this will give SeaBiscuit Romanoff a chance to come up on the inside of the rail.


Oh, please. Yes, we all LOOOVE Andrew. He's warm and fuzzy and every Democratic Mother is secretly hoping that her daughter is "the one" for him.

I don't think he's as politically exciting to "Democrats" as most people would like to think. (I don't know what Dems you're talking to, but the ones I know are certainly luke warm.) Besides, he's too cautious to run for Gov. If it's not a sure thing, he won't go there. His hands will be too full with Referendum "the Vitamin" C. He knows he's better off saving the legislature from the onslaught the Reps are about to putforth in this next election cycle and he can serve two consecutive terms as speaker - now THAT is something to focus on.

He really wants to be in DC and will most likely wait it out in the Legislature until that chance comes.


Survey USA, www.surveyusa.com, released polling data for each of the US Senators by state. Not too exciting for Colorado. It shows why Allard wins and illustrates Salazar's popularity.


Mr. Paschall is completely overboard. Is this guy seriously running for CD-7? He is making Herb look better everyday. I never thought I would consider BB moderate but this guy is right of BB. I am a Christian, I believe in Jesus but this stuff is reminiscent of some of the logic that was used during the middle ages to keep people oppressed. I am just waiting for this guy to say if you don't drown then you are a witch.

This guy is saying that juries decide the law not the politicians that we elect to write the law. This is a scary concept that cuts against everything a Democracy is suppose to be. Am I confused here? This is so over the top I am not sure I even believe it. So if a jury decides lynching is ok then it doesn't matter what kind of laws our representative write then I guess it is just tough and we need to learn to deal with it. Does anybody else feel like Mr. Paschall is living in the 1950s instead of today?


PoliticalPrincess was very insightful. Thanks! But does anyone disagree that so far, it's a "Governor ZZZzzzzz" race?


"Yes, we all LOOOVE Andrew. He's warm and fuzzy and every Democratic Mother is secretly hoping that her daughter is "the one" for him"

that was the hilarious!

but more to the point, Romanoff's political future is tied firmly to the success of Referendum C and D. The timing is just not right for him to run for Governor.

He has a potentially bright political future but it's too soon for him to run for Governor. Not to mention it would be unseemly to have the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate fighting it out in a primary.

It's Jeff!

I think every (rational) Democrat in the state is concerned that so far the guv's race is ZZzzzzzz. Neither one of our guys stands a chance against either one of the Rs. Come on Pat Waak get somebody better! That's your job!


Go vote for COLORADO in the great Colorado vs. Minnesota quarter poll. Vote at Radio Blogger


Glad to see Bill Owens is posting on Colorado Pols to drum up his support for the Colorado quarter...


Marshall, let me ask you something...

The supreme court just declared medicinal marijuana illegal. You are asked to be on a jury in which a 40 year old man with AIDS was caught smoking marijuana to help his pain.
There is no question he was smoking it. Do you convict him?

THAT will help you figure out the concept of Jury Nullification. Its not 50's. Its right now.

Hugo O'conor

I know it's a little late and a little off subject, however, I need a place to rant. As a long time Republican, I find it difficult to accept that CD-6 elected a nutcase like Tancredo. Could you not come up with someone better than him in the primaries back in the day? Did anyone read his quote? He said of illegal immigrants:

"And they need to be found before it is too late. They're coming here to kill you, and you, and me, and my grandchildren," he said, pointing at people in the audience. "It's just despicable."

What is despicable is that this man is allowed to be called a "representative." My only satisfaction is that he does not represent me. I am glad that I don't live in the 6th so that I don't have to vote for a Democrat.


Looks like Ken Salazar finally has a website worth the name!

Phoenix Rising


Jury nullification is an interesting proposition, but Paschall's explanation is completely unfounded in logic or in our founding documents. The judicial system is ill-defined within the stictures of the Constitution; Congress and the Supreme Court hold all the keys in defining our court system at the Federal level, and the States have considerable leeway to define the justice system at the State and local levels (for instance, Louisiana uses the French civil law system, not the English common law system). The power to define the courts was explicitly given to these bodies - hence, if they do not accept judicial nullification, it has no legal place in our system of government.

Having said that, I think the concept of judicial nullification - restricted by the Constitution and not the Laws of God - is not without merit. However, juries sit at the lowest level of the courts; if judicial nullification were to gain acceptance, higher-level courts would be within their legal bounds (and duties) to override the jury's findings.

Paschall's example plaque up here in Gilpin County is also a logical non-starter: the jury didn't decide that, the people of the county did; in modern day, the equivalent is the number of municipalities refusing to co-operate with PATRIOT Act searches, or the movement for medical marijuana.

Regarding the medical marijuana issue, the Supreme Court ruled consistently with its position regarding the Commerce Clause; the majority opinion sympathized with the plaintiffs, but their ruling wasn't based on sympathy, rather it was based in law. Congress is free to change the law, but a group of 6-12 individuals does not have the right to strike down a Congressional law without proper legal review.

Does this help you understand why people think judicial nullification is a flawed and unsupported concept?

Phoenix Rising

Hugo - when did Tancredo say that? Please, please let him run for President in '08 so we can be rid of him...

Phoenix Rising


Unfortunately, I feel more like Paschall is living today instead of in the '50s. In some ways, I think McCarthyism was more straight-forward.

But you know - I have to say I agree with Paschall on a lot of topics in principle if not in degree or direction. If it weren't for the insertion of religion and a few other minor (major) quibbles, I'd be agreeing a lot with the "Strict Constructionists". Sadly, it's the quibbles that kill his (and their) credibility with moderates, liberals, and traditional conservatives, IMHO. The devil's in the details.


A friend from Seattle sent this to me:


I couldn't help but wonder how much of our beautiful skyline has been effected in the last twenty years - or if we've at least been smart in our growth. But of course, Vancouver has been Liberal controlled for ages now...

Rock 5

It'd be the same... But overwhelmed by presently owned corporate sponsored stadiums.

Hugo O'conor

He said it in New Hampshire.


The Denver Channel has the quote


Jury Nullification has its own very small place. In reality, it should be used when a jury gets a case where they believe the law as written is an outrage. It serves to free that one particular individual, while the now outraged jury goes public and demands that legislators change the law. That is the applicable principle.

However, as stated previously, the devil is in the details. As per Mark Paschall, who is a Dominionist Christian, he would encourage jury nullification as a means by which to impose a type of "christian" Sharia Law.

If Paschall and the rest of the Dominionists gain control, you can read about the kind of world we will live in by indulging your mind with Margaret Atwood's novella, "The Handmaid's Tale". See what could happen when a well organized movement of religious conservatives take over the Nation.


Phoenix -

I still want to hear from Marshall what his vote would be if he were a juror. Is he going to convict the man with AIDS or the grandma with Glaucoma for smoking pot?

And Too Much Green Tea, what evidence do you have that Paschall is a Dominionist Christian?

See, all of you buy into media stuff and yet decry it when it goes against your candidate. Its total hypocrisy. So, the media is great when its saying George Bush softened the report on global warming, its great when they say Paschall is handing out Biblical pamphlets, yet its bad when it goes after Kofi Annan or Hillary or anything else. If you are going to take the media as gospel, then do so. Dont pick and choose which reports are wrong or right. You already do that with Consitutional amendments (1st amendment - great, 2nd amendment - BAD).
Oh and I never hear about the radical religious Bill Clinton or Al Gore who give campaign speeches at AME churches - oh they must be different.


Phoenix, one more thing...I can still say not guilty over someone's use of medical marijuana and not have to give a reason for why I voted as such. So it does have aplace in the courts and in statute. I can't help that this country has drifted so far from our founding documents that it is now seen as passe. Do you believe the Constitution is a "living" document? Our founders were wise and even cautioned us not to meddle in the affairs of other nations...hmmmm....yeah, passe.

Phoenix Rising

Stereotyping doesn't resolve the problem, wexford98, nor is it accurate; I and a significant number of other Progressives support the 2nd Amendment.

If we're going to institute judicial nullification, the only way it will work is if it is a seperate verdict from "guilty" or "not guilty"; without justification, the law remains on the books and jurists become people pushing anonymous agenda. Your judicial instructions include having to rule based on the law; if you can't do that - and by doing so uphold your oath as a jurist - you can be subject to penalty, and justly.

So, no, judicial nullification has no place in statute. It's not written anywhere, it's not in our legal code, and no act of the legislature, congress, or courts has given it to us. The Constitution, as I stated, gives explicit right of law and the formation of courts to Congress, and jurisdiction over said courts to the Supreme Court. This explicit declaration leaves no room for judicial nullification.

The Constitution is the basis for our law; we give the Supreme Court the jurisdiction for interpreting that law, and trust that they will rule according to the intent of the founders. If Congress believes the court exceeds its authority, it has the right to impeach judges; since it has chosen not to do so, we can only assume that Congress does not think the Supreme Court or its judges have gotten out of control. To this extent, and to the extent that the Constitution can be amended, it is a living document.

As to ruling on medical marijuana, I would reluctantly have to rule against grandma as being within the bounds of the law; I would also use my potential fame as a juror in the case to push for reform of the law afterwards, and if I had any say in sentencing, I'd push for a minimum sentence ($1 symbolic fine...)

The comments to this entry are closed.