Speaker 1: A gentleman who will be at the Sturm College of
Speaker 1: Law tomorrow at University of Denver. It's an event happening
Speaker 1: at five point thirty pm and it is put on
Speaker 1: by an organization called Keep Our Republic and it is
Speaker 1: a panel discussion about judicial independence. And joining me now
Speaker 1: to talk about it is Judge Ogrady. Judge, welcome to
Speaker 1: the show. First of all, all right, thank.
Speaker 2: You and thank you so much for agreed to allow
Speaker 2: Keep our Republic and the Article three Coalition some time
Speaker 2: on your show today to talk about judicial independence and
Speaker 2: our lecture and.
Speaker 3: Our town hall coming up tomorrow evening.
Speaker 1: Thank you, No, my pleasure. Could you tell my audience
Speaker 1: a little bit about Keep our Republic? What is the organization?
Speaker 3: What is the goal?
Speaker 2: Sure? Keep Our Republic is an organ group that started,
Speaker 2: you know, quite a few years years ago, and it
Speaker 2: was focused on ensuring voting rights were observed in beginning
Speaker 2: in Pennsylvania and in the Midwest, and they.
Speaker 3: Have they tracked election cycles.
Speaker 2: But they now we're a subset of the Keep Our
Speaker 2: Republican Our group is called the Article three Coalition. It's
Speaker 2: made up of almost fifty judges, federal judges who are
Speaker 2: all retired, both district judges, trial judges, and circuit judges,
Speaker 2: the Court of Appeals judges. About half of us were
Speaker 2: nominated and placed in office by Republicans presidents and half
Speaker 2: by Democratic presidents. So we're a very nonpartisan group that
Speaker 2: is very concer learned about our judicial independence, the erosion
Speaker 2: of faith in the decisions that judges are making, and
Speaker 2: the threats that are being made to our former colleagues
Speaker 2: which have become pretty acerbic.
Speaker 1: And so.
Speaker 2: We're having this public forum tomorrow an attempt to educate
Speaker 2: the public about what's going on and to answer questions
Speaker 2: that they have about the role of the judiciary, of
Speaker 2: the necessity for in an independent judiciary, and any other
Speaker 2: matters that they want to discuss during the town hall meeting.
Speaker 1: Well, Judge, and I think a vast majority of people
Speaker 1: in this listening audience would agree that an independent judiciary
Speaker 1: is a critical part of our three tiers of government,
Speaker 1: the three planks that we rely on. But how to
Speaker 1: respond to a criticism from someone who says, look, Judge,
Speaker 1: I appreciate that there needs to be an independent judiciary,
Speaker 1: but we have so much politicization, the appearance of politicization
Speaker 1: by judges themselves, and I have to say with the
Speaker 1: Trump administration, uh specifically, we've had a lot of federal
Speaker 1: judges or district judges even offering nationwide injunctions and things
Speaker 1: of that nature. So how do you balance the need
Speaker 1: and necessity of an independent judiciary with the with some
Speaker 1: politicization or the appearance of politicization that people are perceiving.
Speaker 3: U Mandy.
Speaker 2: The the overwhelming number of judges, UH don't engage in
Speaker 2: anyization uh of.
Speaker 3: Of their decisions.
Speaker 2: You know, our code of conduct uh you know ask
Speaker 2: because you know not to uh politicize any of the
Speaker 2: decisions that they have made.
Speaker 3: You know, we.
Speaker 2: Are we're supposed to speak through our opinions and otherwise
Speaker 2: be silent. And the perception that we have politicized this
Speaker 2: it comes from I think the talk around the decisions
Speaker 2: themselves which people disagree with, and that's fine. Civic discourse
Speaker 2: is how our nation got as far as we did
Speaker 2: in the last two hundred and fifty years.
Speaker 3: You can disagree with judge's decisions, and many have.
Speaker 2: Recently, and they've all been important decisions, as some of
Speaker 2: the judges have been making. But our system is built
Speaker 2: so that there's an Appellate Court and the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: that looks at those decisions and to Germans have you know,
Speaker 2: whether they're correct decisions or not. But the accusations against
Speaker 2: district judges just because they have ruled in a way
Speaker 2: that is unpopular does nothing but a road the confidence
Speaker 2: of the public in the judiciary and also causes a
Speaker 2: great potential harm to the judges themselves and their families,
Speaker 2: which is just so problematic and never has been seen
Speaker 2: before in this country and shouldn't be tolerated.
Speaker 1: I agree wholeheartedly that nothing along the lines of political
Speaker 1: violence or protesting outside any judges or politicians home. I
Speaker 1: think that's beyond the pale. But where does justifiable criticism
Speaker 1: of a judge come in, Because your point of civic
Speaker 1: discourse is at the core of it when you're talking
Speaker 1: about a decision. And I'm going to use Colorado as
Speaker 1: an example. Our Colorado Supreme Court keeps affirming idiotic laws,
Speaker 1: then we send it to the Supreme Court and they
Speaker 1: get overturned. So if you look at the decisions around
Speaker 1: specific issues in Colorado, whether it's being forced to make
Speaker 1: a cake you don't want to make, or make a website,
Speaker 1: or now we've got, you know type constraints on the
Speaker 1: First Amendment when it comes to counseling people who may
Speaker 1: be struggling with their gender. And yet our Colorado Supreme
Speaker 1: Court keeps getting overturned. So people like me, I look
Speaker 1: at the Colorado Supreme Court and say, what are they doing?
Speaker 1: What they keep getting overturned? So where does criticism, where's
Speaker 1: criticism justified? And where is it obviously for calling for
Speaker 1: any kind of violence that's well beyond the pale, So
Speaker 1: what is justified in that situation?
Speaker 3: You know, the community should speak.
Speaker 2: That's why we're coming to Colorado when we're speaking tomorrow.
Speaker 2: And the fact that our citizens disagree with the decisions
Speaker 2: that have been made. Our judges based their rulings on
Speaker 2: the facts and the laws as it exists today, and
Speaker 2: it's up to the legislature, which unfortunately at the federal level,
Speaker 2: is in a complete.
Speaker 3: Log jam and there's no you know, uh.
Speaker 2: Expectation that they're going to get any better anytime soon. Yeah,
Speaker 2: which which has put added pressure on both the executive
Speaker 2: and the judicial branches.
Speaker 3: But it's up to the people to speak and to
Speaker 3: change the laws.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's not like the judges that are being criticized,
Speaker 2: have not used the facts of the case and the
Speaker 2: law surrounding it to make their decisions. They may be
Speaker 2: unpopular decisions, and they may be incorrect. They have you know,
Speaker 2: our district judges have been reversed by a Court of
Speaker 2: Appeals and the Supreme Court recently on some important issues.
Speaker 2: And you know that's that's how our system works. So
Speaker 2: unless the laws are changed, the judges are in a
Speaker 2: position where they are required to follow.
Speaker 3: The law even if they don't like it. So what happens?
Speaker 1: What will be the starting point of this conversation? Are
Speaker 1: you guys discussing a specific question or is there kind
Speaker 1: of a jumping off point for tomorrow's event at the
Speaker 1: Sturm College of Law and the University of Denver's campus.
Speaker 2: I think it's the the fear now that are the
Speaker 2: of the erosion of people's trust in the judiciary.
Speaker 3: We must have an independent judiciary.
Speaker 2: I mean that goes all the way back to Alexander
Speaker 2: Hamilton saying that only if we have an independent judiciary
Speaker 2: does our legislative and an executive branches uh operate properly.
Speaker 2: But so our starting off, jumping off point is to
Speaker 2: talk about how the erosion has occurred over quite a
Speaker 2: number of years.
Speaker 3: This is nothing uh new.
Speaker 2: UH. That we need an independent judiciary, that the public
Speaker 2: should be educated about what the judges.
Speaker 3: Do and what they don't do. UH.
Speaker 2: And that is, you know, they follow the rule of law,
Speaker 2: which of course you know, means that we look at
Speaker 2: public laws that everyone is aware of, uh, and we
Speaker 2: apply them equally to anyone without regard uh to who
Speaker 2: they are or what their beliefs are. UH. And that uh,
Speaker 2: you know, the the uh that rule of laws is followed.
Speaker 3: So you know we've that's our that's our jumping off point.
Speaker 1: Judjo Grady is going to be part of the panel
Speaker 1: discussion tomorrow at five thirty to five thirty to six
Speaker 1: forty five at the Storm College of Law in Room
Speaker 1: one sixty five. And I have written all of this
Speaker 1: on the blog today. If you're driving and you can't
Speaker 1: get that information, it is on today's blog. Judjo Grady,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for your time today and for
Speaker 1: having this conversation. And you know, I agree we've got
Speaker 1: to have an independent judiciary that people can trust or
Speaker 1: otherwise the whole system falls apart. So thanks to you
Speaker 1: for addressing this topic.
Speaker 3: All right, thank you so much, Mandy.
Speaker 1: All right, that is judge oh Grady, you can gain
Speaker 1: go to that event tomorrow night.