October 13, 2025 • 10 mins
ABOUT JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE An important event taking place in Denver on October 14 at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law — a public forum on judicial independence hosted by Keep Our Republic’s Article III Coalition, featuring three distinguished former federal judges. The discussion will focus on the rising challenges facing the judiciary and the importance of preserving judicial independence in a constitutional democracy. We believe this is a valuable opportunity for meaningful, nonpartisan coverage on issues vital to the rule of law. I've got Judge O'Grady today at 2:30 to talk about the event, find out about Keep Our Republic by clicking here. The event if Tuesday, October 14 from 5:30 to 6:45 p.m. at the Sturm College of Law (Room 165)
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
A gentleman who will be at the Sturm College of
Law tomorrow at University of Denver. It's an event happening
at five point thirty pm and it is put on
by an organization called Keep Our Republic and it is
a panel discussion about judicial independence. And joining me now
to talk about it is Judge Ogrady. Judge, welcome to
(00:20):
the show. First of all, all right, thank.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
You and thank you so much for agreed to allow
Keep our Republic and the Article three Coalition some time
on your show today to talk about judicial independence and
our lecture and.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Our town hall coming up tomorrow evening.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Thank you, No, my pleasure. Could you tell my audience
a little bit about Keep our Republic? What is the organization?
Speaker 3 (00:50):
What is the goal?
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Sure? Keep Our Republic is an organ group that started,
you know, quite a few years years ago, and it
was focused on ensuring voting rights were observed in beginning
in Pennsylvania and in the Midwest, and they.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
Have they tracked election cycles.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
But they now we're a subset of the Keep Our
Republican Our group is called the Article three Coalition. It's
made up of almost fifty judges, federal judges who are
all retired, both district judges, trial judges, and circuit judges,
(01:39):
the Court of Appeals judges. About half of us were
nominated and placed in office by Republicans presidents and half
by Democratic presidents. So we're a very nonpartisan group that
is very concer learned about our judicial independence, the erosion
(02:06):
of faith in the decisions that judges are making, and
the threats that are being made to our former colleagues
which have become pretty acerbic.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
And so.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
We're having this public forum tomorrow an attempt to educate
the public about what's going on and to answer questions
that they have about the role of the judiciary, of
the necessity for in an independent judiciary, and any other
matters that they want to discuss during the town hall meeting.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
Well, Judge, and I think a vast majority of people
in this listening audience would agree that an independent judiciary
is a critical part of our three tiers of government,
the three planks that we rely on. But how to
respond to a criticism from someone who says, look, Judge,
I appreciate that there needs to be an independent judiciary,
(03:06):
but we have so much politicization, the appearance of politicization
by judges themselves, and I have to say with the
Trump administration, uh specifically, we've had a lot of federal
judges or district judges even offering nationwide injunctions and things
of that nature. So how do you balance the need
(03:27):
and necessity of an independent judiciary with the with some
politicization or the appearance of politicization that people are perceiving.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
U Mandy.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
The the overwhelming number of judges, UH don't engage in
anyization uh of.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
Of their decisions.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
You know, our code of conduct uh you know ask
because you know not to uh politicize any of the
decisions that they have made.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
You know, we.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
Are we're supposed to speak through our opinions and otherwise
be silent. And the perception that we have politicized this
it comes from I think the talk around the decisions
(04:28):
themselves which people disagree with, and that's fine. Civic discourse
is how our nation got as far as we did
in the last two hundred and fifty years.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
You can disagree with judge's decisions, and many have.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Recently, and they've all been important decisions, as some of
the judges have been making. But our system is built
so that there's an Appellate Court and the Supreme Court
that looks at those decisions and to Germans have you know,
whether they're correct decisions or not. But the accusations against
(05:07):
district judges just because they have ruled in a way
that is unpopular does nothing but a road the confidence
of the public in the judiciary and also causes a
great potential harm to the judges themselves and their families,
(05:27):
which is just so problematic and never has been seen
before in this country and shouldn't be tolerated.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
I agree wholeheartedly that nothing along the lines of political
violence or protesting outside any judges or politicians home. I
think that's beyond the pale. But where does justifiable criticism
of a judge come in, Because your point of civic
discourse is at the core of it when you're talking
about a decision. And I'm going to use Colorado as
an example. Our Colorado Supreme Court keeps affirming idiotic laws,
(06:03):
then we send it to the Supreme Court and they
get overturned. So if you look at the decisions around
specific issues in Colorado, whether it's being forced to make
a cake you don't want to make, or make a website,
or now we've got, you know type constraints on the
First Amendment when it comes to counseling people who may
(06:24):
be struggling with their gender. And yet our Colorado Supreme
Court keeps getting overturned. So people like me, I look
at the Colorado Supreme Court and say, what are they doing?
What they keep getting overturned? So where does criticism, where's
criticism justified? And where is it obviously for calling for
any kind of violence that's well beyond the pale, So
what is justified in that situation?
Speaker 3 (06:48):
You know, the community should speak.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
That's why we're coming to Colorado when we're speaking tomorrow.
And the fact that our citizens disagree with the decisions
that have been made. Our judges based their rulings on
the facts and the laws as it exists today, and
it's up to the legislature, which unfortunately at the federal level,
(07:14):
is in a complete.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
Log jam and there's no you know, uh.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
Expectation that they're going to get any better anytime soon. Yeah,
which which has put added pressure on both the executive
and the judicial branches.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
But it's up to the people to speak and to
change the laws.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
I mean, it's not like the judges that are being criticized,
have not used the facts of the case and the
law surrounding it to make their decisions. They may be
unpopular decisions, and they may be incorrect. They have you know,
our district judges have been reversed by a Court of
Appeals and the Supreme Court recently on some important issues.
(08:00):
And you know that's that's how our system works. So
unless the laws are changed, the judges are in a
position where they are required to follow.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
The law even if they don't like it. So what happens?
Speaker 1 (08:16):
What will be the starting point of this conversation? Are
you guys discussing a specific question or is there kind
of a jumping off point for tomorrow's event at the
Sturm College of Law and the University of Denver's campus.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
I think it's the the fear now that are the
of the erosion of people's trust in the judiciary.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
We must have an independent judiciary.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
I mean that goes all the way back to Alexander
Hamilton saying that only if we have an independent judiciary
does our legislative and an executive branches uh operate properly.
But so our starting off, jumping off point is to
talk about how the erosion has occurred over quite a
(09:15):
number of years.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
This is nothing uh new.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
UH. That we need an independent judiciary, that the public
should be educated about what the judges.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
Do and what they don't do. UH.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
And that is, you know, they follow the rule of law,
which of course you know, means that we look at
public laws that everyone is aware of, uh, and we
apply them equally to anyone without regard uh to who
they are or what their beliefs are. UH. And that uh,
(09:50):
you know, the the uh that rule of laws is followed.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
So you know we've that's our that's our jumping off point.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
Judjo Grady is going to be part of the panel
discussion tomorrow at five thirty to five thirty to six
forty five at the Storm College of Law in Room
one sixty five. And I have written all of this
on the blog today. If you're driving and you can't
get that information, it is on today's blog. Judjo Grady,
thank you so much for your time today and for
having this conversation. And you know, I agree we've got
(10:21):
to have an independent judiciary that people can trust or
otherwise the whole system falls apart. So thanks to you
for addressing this topic.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
All right, thank you so much, Mandy.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
All right, that is judge oh Grady, you can gain
go to that event tomorrow night.
A gentleman who will be at the Sturm College of
Law tomorrow at University of Denver. It's an event happening
at five point thirty pm and it is put on
by an organization called Keep Our Republic and it is
a panel discussion about judicial independence. And joining me now
to talk about it is Judge Ogrady. Judge, welcome to
(00:20):
the show. First of all, all right, thank.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
You and thank you so much for agreed to allow
Keep our Republic and the Article three Coalition some time
on your show today to talk about judicial independence and
our lecture and.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Our town hall coming up tomorrow evening.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Thank you, No, my pleasure. Could you tell my audience
a little bit about Keep our Republic? What is the organization?
Speaker 3 (00:50):
What is the goal?
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Sure? Keep Our Republic is an organ group that started,
you know, quite a few years years ago, and it
was focused on ensuring voting rights were observed in beginning
in Pennsylvania and in the Midwest, and they.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
Have they tracked election cycles.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
But they now we're a subset of the Keep Our
Republican Our group is called the Article three Coalition. It's
made up of almost fifty judges, federal judges who are
all retired, both district judges, trial judges, and circuit judges,
(01:39):
the Court of Appeals judges. About half of us were
nominated and placed in office by Republicans presidents and half
by Democratic presidents. So we're a very nonpartisan group that
is very concer learned about our judicial independence, the erosion
(02:06):
of faith in the decisions that judges are making, and
the threats that are being made to our former colleagues
which have become pretty acerbic.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
And so.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
We're having this public forum tomorrow an attempt to educate
the public about what's going on and to answer questions
that they have about the role of the judiciary, of
the necessity for in an independent judiciary, and any other
matters that they want to discuss during the town hall meeting.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
Well, Judge, and I think a vast majority of people
in this listening audience would agree that an independent judiciary
is a critical part of our three tiers of government,
the three planks that we rely on. But how to
respond to a criticism from someone who says, look, Judge,
I appreciate that there needs to be an independent judiciary,
(03:06):
but we have so much politicization, the appearance of politicization
by judges themselves, and I have to say with the
Trump administration, uh specifically, we've had a lot of federal
judges or district judges even offering nationwide injunctions and things
of that nature. So how do you balance the need
(03:27):
and necessity of an independent judiciary with the with some
politicization or the appearance of politicization that people are perceiving.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
U Mandy.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
The the overwhelming number of judges, UH don't engage in
anyization uh of.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
Of their decisions.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
You know, our code of conduct uh you know ask
because you know not to uh politicize any of the
decisions that they have made.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
You know, we.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
Are we're supposed to speak through our opinions and otherwise
be silent. And the perception that we have politicized this
it comes from I think the talk around the decisions
(04:28):
themselves which people disagree with, and that's fine. Civic discourse
is how our nation got as far as we did
in the last two hundred and fifty years.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
You can disagree with judge's decisions, and many have.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Recently, and they've all been important decisions, as some of
the judges have been making. But our system is built
so that there's an Appellate Court and the Supreme Court
that looks at those decisions and to Germans have you know,
whether they're correct decisions or not. But the accusations against
(05:07):
district judges just because they have ruled in a way
that is unpopular does nothing but a road the confidence
of the public in the judiciary and also causes a
great potential harm to the judges themselves and their families,
(05:27):
which is just so problematic and never has been seen
before in this country and shouldn't be tolerated.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
I agree wholeheartedly that nothing along the lines of political
violence or protesting outside any judges or politicians home. I
think that's beyond the pale. But where does justifiable criticism
of a judge come in, Because your point of civic
discourse is at the core of it when you're talking
about a decision. And I'm going to use Colorado as
an example. Our Colorado Supreme Court keeps affirming idiotic laws,
(06:03):
then we send it to the Supreme Court and they
get overturned. So if you look at the decisions around
specific issues in Colorado, whether it's being forced to make
a cake you don't want to make, or make a website,
or now we've got, you know type constraints on the
First Amendment when it comes to counseling people who may
(06:24):
be struggling with their gender. And yet our Colorado Supreme
Court keeps getting overturned. So people like me, I look
at the Colorado Supreme Court and say, what are they doing?
What they keep getting overturned? So where does criticism, where's
criticism justified? And where is it obviously for calling for
any kind of violence that's well beyond the pale, So
what is justified in that situation?
Speaker 3 (06:48):
You know, the community should speak.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
That's why we're coming to Colorado when we're speaking tomorrow.
And the fact that our citizens disagree with the decisions
that have been made. Our judges based their rulings on
the facts and the laws as it exists today, and
it's up to the legislature, which unfortunately at the federal level,
(07:14):
is in a complete.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
Log jam and there's no you know, uh.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
Expectation that they're going to get any better anytime soon. Yeah,
which which has put added pressure on both the executive
and the judicial branches.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
But it's up to the people to speak and to
change the laws.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
I mean, it's not like the judges that are being criticized,
have not used the facts of the case and the
law surrounding it to make their decisions. They may be
unpopular decisions, and they may be incorrect. They have you know,
our district judges have been reversed by a Court of
Appeals and the Supreme Court recently on some important issues.
(08:00):
And you know that's that's how our system works. So
unless the laws are changed, the judges are in a
position where they are required to follow.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
The law even if they don't like it. So what happens?
Speaker 1 (08:16):
What will be the starting point of this conversation? Are
you guys discussing a specific question or is there kind
of a jumping off point for tomorrow's event at the
Sturm College of Law and the University of Denver's campus.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
I think it's the the fear now that are the
of the erosion of people's trust in the judiciary.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
We must have an independent judiciary.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
I mean that goes all the way back to Alexander
Hamilton saying that only if we have an independent judiciary
does our legislative and an executive branches uh operate properly.
But so our starting off, jumping off point is to
talk about how the erosion has occurred over quite a
(09:15):
number of years.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
This is nothing uh new.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
UH. That we need an independent judiciary, that the public
should be educated about what the judges.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
Do and what they don't do. UH.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
And that is, you know, they follow the rule of law,
which of course you know, means that we look at
public laws that everyone is aware of, uh, and we
apply them equally to anyone without regard uh to who
they are or what their beliefs are. UH. And that uh,
(09:50):
you know, the the uh that rule of laws is followed.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
So you know we've that's our that's our jumping off point.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
Judjo Grady is going to be part of the panel
discussion tomorrow at five thirty to five thirty to six
forty five at the Storm College of Law in Room
one sixty five. And I have written all of this
on the blog today. If you're driving and you can't
get that information, it is on today's blog. Judjo Grady,
thank you so much for your time today and for
having this conversation. And you know, I agree we've got
(10:21):
to have an independent judiciary that people can trust or
otherwise the whole system falls apart. So thanks to you
for addressing this topic.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
All right, thank you so much, Mandy.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
All right, that is judge oh Grady, you can gain
go to that event tomorrow night.
The Mandy Connell Podcast News
Popular Podcasts
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com