CO Supreme Court makes it easier to sue those that sue you. Colorado Dems and how the shoe pinches the other foot. So-called Big Beautiful Bill.
CO Supreme Court makes it easier to sue those that sue you.
In a surprising bout of good judgment, the Colorado Supreme Court made it easier for defendants to sue those that sue them.
Prior to this ruling, defendants already had the ability to sue someone for "malicious prosecution". Quoting the Colorado Politics article linked at bottom:
"A person may sue for malicious prosecution when someone knowingly initiates a criminal or civil legal proceeding that lacks merit and the case ends in the person's favor. Among other things, the party alleging malicious prosecution must establish there was no probable cause to initiate the original proceeding in the first place."
What the Colorado Supreme Court decided in a recent case (discussed at length in the article) was that a trial judge advancing a case to a jury trial is not necessarily evidence that probable cause existed. Put more simply, the judge letting something go to trial doesn't automatically mean that the case had enough merit to not be malicious.
There's a lot more in the article which I will leave for you to read, but this decision is a fair one in my view.
As mentioned in the article, no one knows for sure why a judge would refer a case to a jury (unless the judge were to specifically cite probable cause as justification), so using that as a test is faulty reasoning. I could easily see a judge wanting to not get too deep in assessing the merits (and thus inviting more of an argument from one side or the other) of a case and just punting to a jury. This was mentioned in the article also as especially being the case in complicated civil matters. Quoting:
"[Justice Richard L.] Gabriel added some judges will always be hesitant to decide that a defendant should prevail as a matter of law, without the need for a jury to adjudicate conflicting facts. 'Particularly in a commercial litigation where you’ve got hundreds of pages of exhibits on both sides and it is not unreasonable for judge to say, "There’s gotta be a fact question here somewhere,"' he said."
While I agree with the theory behind this particular ruling, it should be noted that it, like the one I wrote about before (the CO Supreme Court's rule on racial bias in jury selection), has the potential to create more trials.
The decision still leaves the door open for former plaintiffs, now defendants, to bring the original judge's decision on forwarding the trial to a jury into their new trial, arguing that the earlier decision was a stamp of approval.
Ah, more full time work for the courts.
Related:
If you are curious at the image that heads the post above, Google "The fable of the wolf and his lawsuit against the sheep"
The wolf sues the sheep and his witnesses are the dog and the two vultures. The fix is in, in other words.
Colorado Dems and how the shoe pinches the other foot.
If I were forced to come up with a theme of Colorado Democrats' response to Trump becoming President again, and I only had one sentence to do it in, the sentence would be this: the shoe pinches on the other foot.
There are multiple examples I can point to, but let's zoom out a little.
The article linked at bottom is from the Colorado Politics Rural Reckoning series (very much worth reading whether you live in a rural area or not--click on the story and look for related articles on the left side).
This particular installment deals with how the often-conservative rural minority residents in this state feel they have no say in what the state does. The article doesn't (and I don't disagree) focus entirely on just hot-button leftist/conservative issues; the problem is bigger than that and extends even to simple ignorance of how their policy would play out in small towns or affect industries like Ag.
How much wailing and gnashing of teeth has come out of the Colorado Democrats lately as a Republican President backed by a Republican Congress cram down their policy on this state against the wishes of those running it? How many railing about state's rights and local control?
How little self-consciousness about hypocrisy on their part to lament either given their behavior toward those in their own state.
I would be in support of more bipartisan policy coming out of the Federal government, but that's not what we're destined to have right now, so I'll settle for a government that changes hands every so often so that we can have a course correction here and there. That is, if we can't stay at the center, I'll take orbiting it.
Unfortunately, we'll have neither in this state in the near future--not never but not in the near future. The folks ruling this state, by their own hypocrisy, have shown that they are unwilling to be decent enough to offer you a hand in making policy (unless you are willing to submit to the way they want to do things). The population dynamics are such that you can't expect to get control back by straight up outvoting Democrats.
The only way to affect change is to move from being upset and complaining to actions, and the only thing you'll gain by waiting to get involved is a longer wait for change.
Seek out ways that you can call out and work against the current system, big and small. If you need ideas, message me and let's chat.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/news/rural-colorado-disproportionate-representation/article_f651bbbf-1a54-4773-92f9-2bcef359b262.html
Related:
I cannot tell you how much it warms my heart to see Federal agencies being used by conservatives in the same ways they've been used by Democrats/leftists for years now.
Many examples I can cite, from Title IX lawsuits to gun rights amicus briefs, but I'll stick to just the one video below.
Frankly it's past time that the Federal government respected and defended causes other than just those of liberals.
And I can't help but laugh to see some of those same liberals' grills cooking.
So-called Big Beautiful Bill.
Let's start with a quote from under the headline of the Sun article below.
"Presentations about the so-called big, beautiful bill to the Executive Committee of the Legislative Council on Wednesday was a precursor to a special lawmaking term expected to be called by Gov. Jared Polis for the coming weeks."
Catch it?
"so-called"
No, Mr. Paul and Mr. Woods, not so-called. Actually called. See the second link below.
This sort of editorializing sticks out even further when you note that the Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act never carried the appellation "so-called".
You could reasonably argue about whether either bill lived up to its name, I could see reasonable cases for both not living up to it frankly.
What you can't argue is that the lefty reporters who wrote this article and the lefty paper that carried it treat Republicans differently than they do Democrats.
https://coloradosun.com/2025/07/30/colorado-big-beautiful-bill-state-budget-effects/
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text