Ritter To Appoint Lesbian Activist Deputy Atty. General Monica Marquez To Colo. Supreme Court

As anticipated, lame duck Colorado Governor Bill Ritter will appoint lesbian activist, Deputy Attorney General Monica Marquez to replace Mary Mullarkey on Colorado’s embattled Supreme Court, according to a report by the Denver Post’s top political correspondent, Lynn Bartels.


Marquez has the needed pedigree.  A law degree from Yale,  Lesbian activism, and a dad who was the first Hispanic to serve on the Colorado Court of Appeals.  We don’t know much more about Marquez or the other two finalists  as they all jointly refused to speak to the public, despite their contact information being provided for exactly that purpose.

She would be the second Hispanic to serve on the Colorado Supremes, and perhaps the only one  should Justice Alex Martinez lose his bid for retention in November.  Marquez, who obtained her law degree in 1997,  has scant experience – and almost all of it defending state government and its employees.  A much nicer photo of Marquez sporting a more stylish haircut is here, together with photos of her co-finalists. [deleted because Law week web site infected with malware]

Anyone who thinks Marquez’ votes on any of the disputed tax and other issues of legitimate concern to the public would be any different from Mary Mullarkey’s votes is delusional.

Clear the Bench Colorado may well have prompted Chief Justice Mullarkey’s resignation, and they and tireless Director Matt Arnold should be applauded for that effort.  It’s an important first step.

But until we achieve systemic change in the judicial branch, we are doing nothing more than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  Worse, we fool people into believing that cosmetic cures mean something when they don’t.  Such deception will only slow reform, not aid it.  What Bill Ritter has given us appears to be a younger, more virile model of Mullarkey.

3 responses to “Ritter To Appoint Lesbian Activist Deputy Atty. General Monica Marquez To Colo. Supreme Court

  1. Did you really remark on her HAIRCUT? Irrelevant and offensive

    • Holly, I did speak to her on the phone, and the three finalists apparently conspired together not to talk to the public, despite contact information for exactly that purpose being given out.

      So the topics of commentary are far narrower than I would like. Doesn’t that offend you? Why didn’t you speak out earlier and call for them to speak out about their views? Absent that, we in the media have the choice of puff pieces from the DP or comments on haircuts and ethnicity. I would have liked much more.

      Holly, I spent hours trying to get it from all three finalists. Nada. I also thought the public should have gotten the names of the 28 who didn’t make the final three. Nada. So don’t blame me. Blame the coverup judicial branch.

  2. Liberals have put qualifications such as ethnicity and now gender identification well ahead of actual achievement or even in the case of judges, judicial philosophy. Guess liberals are taking their cues from BHO and just not talking.

    And hey, it is a more flattering photo even if I would have never guessed, aside from the caption, that it was the picture of a woman.

    Nice job of reporting!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s