What Coloradan would think that he would get a fair-shake, if he were brought before a panel dealing largely in thought-crimes (i.e. the Colorado Civil Rights Commission), which functions as a …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
If you're a print subscriber, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one.
Click here to see your options for becoming a subscriber.
If you made a voluntary contribution of $25 or more in Nov. 2018-2019, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one at no additional charge. VIP Digital Access Includes access to all websites
What Coloradan would think that he would get a fair-shake, if he were brought before a panel dealing largely in thought-crimes (i.e. the Colorado Civil Rights Commission), which functions as a combination of judge, jury, and prosecutor?
Would he be content to know that he would have no jury-of-his-peers to protect him from prosecutorial overreach, and that the US Supreme Court might be his only savior?Further, what would be his reaction, knowing that the unelected inquisitors on that panel, being appointed by a partisan Governor, as per State law, each were required to have proverbial axes-to-grind on issues brought before them?
Other than in a totalitarian state, where else would such blatantly biased jurors be tolerated? As these travesties on justice describe the fate of unfortunates dragged before the misnamed Civil Rights Commission (and various Administrative-Law-Courts as well), isn’t it imperative that a stake be driven through the heart of said Commission, and it be allowed to naturally expire, unamended, as per its 2018 ‘sunset’ requirement?
Russell W Haas,Golden
Other items that may interest you
We have noticed you are using an ad blocking plugin in your browser.
The revenue we receive from our advertisers helps make this site possible. We request you whitelist our site.