Voting for judges..

[def90]

With the election coming up there are always the judges up for retention on the ballot. I've always had a hard time finding any info on any of the judges up for retention so most of the time I just skip it.

John Caldera makes a case for voting "No" on all of them.

https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com...GiJkI.facebook

[buffalobo]

I always vote no on all of them. Not enough light gets shown on local judges.

[BPTactical]

Yup, judges need to be changed.

[ChadAmberg]

I spend most of my time on judges. In many ways they're more important than the politicians who are guaranteed to be bad. I pour over the blue book thing they send and online resources. I look for the reviews that detail how fair they are to both sides. Any judge that isn't impartial or has overall a bad demeanor gets my no vote. The last several elections, I think it's been like 2 or 3 out of 15 judges that get the no, so the vast majority of them seem to be doing what they're supposed to.

[Little Dutch]

I used to spend quite a long time researching judges. I stopped a number of years ago and always vote no now. Judges in CO have never been at any real risk of being voted out.

https://gazette.com/opinion/column-v...zuSbH2kcccmfjc

In 2020, there were five statewide judicial retention votes. All five won their retentions in landslides. The tightest race was that of Court of Appeals Judge Craig Welling with a blisteringly close 70% ?yes? vote.

Judges here are appointed by the governor. And given that for 40 of the last 48 years we?ve had Democrat governors, our judiciary is out of touch, ideologically driven, extremely leftist and, as demonstrated by the recent flood of news stories, arrogant and corrupt.

[FoxtArt]

Yeah, vote no for all when it comes down to it. They'll still be retained. But it's closer to giving people a chance of cutting the horrific ones.

We have the "kings court" in Colorado.

Very little differences from ye olden days of the 1600s.

That's not to say that voting in all judges is necessarily better - only to say that the early middle ages had it much better. Back then, it was essentially jury-directed trials. We copied the worst system, where judges are pretty consistently a pumpkin that shouldn't have a payroll, and there isn't hardly a judge alive that intentionally or otherwise, doesn't ensure their desired verdict is the result.

And the judge also (usually) decides the sentencing anyway; I'd prefer an actual jury system, not the blatantly fake one we advertise as justice.

[arbol]

Voting no on Judges, check.

-John