Posted on 09/09/2010 2:24:38 PM PDT by topher
Hogwash to a major degree! These judges should definitely be held accountable. How can anyone say otherwise? Hogwash!!!
I am expecting these judges will sue to retain their jobs, saying this 48-yr old law in unconstitutional, in addition to being outdated.
Ha Ha!
Ms. O’Connor, (not US Supreme Court Judge), you are retired now. Please retire your mouth, too!
The judges need to be kicked off the courts when they get too progressive...
Iowa Freepers:
Is there any actual chance that the votes are there to remove these three judges?
I'll vote to remove them just on general principles but the real issue must be addressed by a constitutional amendment.
How many judges have EVER been recalled?
This is why judges like merit retention.
NONE, ZERO judges from Bush v. Gore had any danger of being ousted, in fact they kept their posts by 60%+ at the voting time.
I HOPE at least one judge gets the ax.
The Founders were more concerned about judicial independence than accountability to the electorate. That is why the federal system is the way it is. It produces problems from time to time with various groups but should not be changed. Judges were intended to be above “politics”.
Iowa’s constitution allows this but there is less danger from democracy in a state than in the nation as a whole.
The danger was illustrated early in our history by the impeachment of Justice Chase and the treason trial of Aaron Burr. Jefferson was determined to bring the judiciary under his thumb and those trials were examples of why he was wrong to attack the judiciary’s independence.
The alternative would have judges campaigning for office with all the problems that would entail taking front row. “I’ll acquit you if I can get your vote, etc.” The influence of the Democrat machines is bad enough this would put them beyond touch.
They don’t have to. This will show the truth of the situation. http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2010/09/09/a-conservative%e2%80%99s-view-of-the-justice-sandra-day-o%e2%80%99connor-event/comment-page-1/#comment-27989
Absolutely. Just watch.
why is a state bar forcing members to spend their dues money on retention?
These aren’t impeachments merely constitutional exercises othe Iowa constitution. Nor are they “retaliation”, just voters doing their jobs
I agree, the minute judges started writting the laws, we should of ended lifetime appointment.
In fact, with lifetimes lasting so long now, the whole idea should be scrapped anyway regardless, maybe 20 years MAX.
In 1986, there were a number of PACs that were agitating for the rejection of one or more of those California Supreme Court justices. Another agitated for the rejection of Stanley Mosk, a Pat Brown appointee from the Sixties, who was a liberal judge also up for a reconfirmation vote. It was thought that the California Republican Party would stay out of the fray.
So it was something of a surprise when Gov. George Deukmejian, who was up for re-election in 1986, asked the leaders of the various PACs to meet with him in Sacramento. The leaders thought that Deukmejian was going to let them down, and they were quite surprised when he asked them to combine their PACs, concentrate on Bird, Grodin and Reynoso, and leave Mosk alone.
His reasoning was simple. Mosk was one of the most respected jurists on any state supreme court, and he was also a canny politician. Going after Mosk would make the effort look too radical and create a large target for the national press. Better to leave Mosk alone, and explain that they were giving him a pass because he was an honest liberal. Bird, Grodin and Reynoso, on the other hand, could be targeted as radical liberals.
Deukmejian also told the PAC leaders that after they merged, all their advertising would have to be vetted by party professionals, lest they say something radical enough to discredit the movement. If they agreed to this, Deukmejian would provide the full support of the party and make the removal of the three justices a plank of the party platform and his campaign.
The Los Angeles Times issued a smarmy editorial explaining to the unsophisticated voters of Southern California that the provision in the California Constitution permitting confirmation votes for justices was a terrible mistake, and the citizens of the state had a moral obligation to vote for reconfirmation no matter what they thought about the justices politics. That editorial blew up in their face.
Bird lost by 3-to-1, and the other two justices lost by 2-to-1. It was one of the few moments of clarity in California politics.
*****************************
Well said!
LOL!
I like LifeSiteNews, but these judges didn't "legalize" anything. Judges don't make law, and they can't amend constitutions. They decide individual cases, and publish their opinions to back up those decisions.
A horrid headline that just plays into the hands of the Left and their judicial supremacist fellow travelers.
Yes, yes I know they are not formal impeachments in the constitutional sense, just as democrats in congress are not “traitors” under the constitution.
No, Iowa provides for the people to impeach and convict on their own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.