This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Phil Weiser is Colorado's attorney general, a far-left politician in a far-left state where the governor's office, the legislature and even the state Supreme Court all are controlled by Democrats.
The state's highest court is so far into being progressives the all-Democrats there even tried to remove President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot before being slapped down hard by the U.S. Supreme Court, just the latest in a long list of rulings against Colorado's anti-Republican and anti-Christian ideologies.
Now Weiser, who has used the public funds running his office repeatedly to attack Trump, is being called out for his "constitutionally perverse" agenda against Trump.
The commentary comes in a column by Robert G. Natelson at Complete Colorado. He's a former constitutional law professor and contributes at both the Independence Institute and the Mountain States Policy Center, and authored "The Original Constitution."
"Progressives," he concluded, "generally don't care a rodent's derriere about the Constitution's division of powers. (How many times did Weiser sue the overreaching Biden administration?) And most of Weiser's suits are constitutionally perverse: they are designed either to (1) undermine legitimate federal functions, such as immigration control, or (2) force the federal government to do things the Constitution actually does not assign to it (such as subsidizing solar power)."
He criticized that Weiser would "rather fight the duly elected president of the United States than protect Coloradans from crime," which is surging in the state.
His concern was Weiser's "troubling taxpayer-funded obsession" with Trump.
The latest scheme from Weiser is that he wants to make Colorado worse than California.
That issue is apportionment, which in Colorado is by an independent commission.
It was in 2018 voters approved a plan moving the job of drawing congressional districts from lawmakers to the commission.
"I voted against both. One reason is that I generally oppose moving political decisions away from the people's representatives and lodging them in administrative agencies. Doing so is undemocratic, and it doesn't take the politics out of the decisions. It just hides the politics from public view," Natelson wrote.
"Another reason is that lawmakers who gerrymander have to explain their conduct to the voters. An independent commission never has to do that."
He said he held doubts even then that "progressives" would keep their word if it ever became inconvenient, and Weiser's latest scheming confirms that worry.
"In Texas, reapportionment is still the prerogative of the legislature, and the legislature recently exercised that authority to create more Republican congressional districts. The legislature could defend this action as a response to the state's huge population growth and its increasingly Republican hue," he said. But in California, Democrats have abandoned their "independent" panel that already had gerrymandered districts to favor Democrats.
There, "Although Republicans garner nearly 40 percent of the vote in California, they hold only 17 percent of the state's seats in the U.S. House of Representatives," he noted.
That wasn't good enough for Democrats there, who are trying to cut that GOP representation in Congress now by half.
"Weiser has just shown that he's in the running for the Independence Institute's 'Californian of the Year Award.' He wants to pull the same stunt in Colorado."
The record on which Weiser is running already is skewed in a serious way. His "obsession" has prompted him to bring or join some 40 or more lawsuits against Trump, including:
That, of course, is only a few of the cases, "all paid for with our tax money," the commentary said.
