Iowans Seek to Sack Three Judges who Legalized Gay “Marriage”

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | September 9, 2010 | By Peter J. Smith

[topher]

Thursday September 9, 2010

---

Iowans Seek to Sack Three Judges who Legalized Gay “Marriage”

By Peter J. Smith

DES MOINES, Iowa, September 9, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on Wednesday waded into a unique state electoral battle, where conservatives are seeking to recall from the bench three state Supreme Court justices that legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2009.

Speaking at a panel organized by the Iowa State Bar Association in the Hotel Fort Des Moines, O'Connor asserted that “the judges should not be subject to retaliation" from voters for the decisions they render.

According to the AP, Chief Justice Marsha Ternus introduced O’Connor at the event, warning that "fair and independent courts" were at stake. However, Ternus is one of those, along with Justices David Baker and Michael Streit, whose terms on the high court will come to an end unless Iowans vote “yes” to retain them on November 2.

Under a 1962 amendment to Iowa’s constitution, eight years after being appointed judges must go on the ballot for a popular vote to retain their position or be sent packing.

Usually judges have little difficulty retaining their posts, but this year is different owing to the high court – by unanimous consent – striking down the state Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), on the basis that it violated the state’s guarantees of equal protection.

Conservatives accused the high court of overstepping its bounds and engaging in judicial activism by appealing to an “evolving standard” of interpreting the state constitution.

"The April 3, 2009, opinion made it extremely clear that this court became activist in nature. We say we don't want the courts politicized but that's exactly what they did," said conservative activist and former GOP candidate for governor Bob Vander Plaats in an interview broadcast Sunday on KCCI-TV.

The former GOP candidate, who pledged to use an executive order to nullify the court’s ruling until the legislature made a new law, has said the retention vote provides an antidote to the politicization of the court.

“We believe it has been politicized and that is why we have the retention vote,” Vander Plaats said. “The retention vote is an accountability mechanism. When court gets out of balance, the people then have a say and can rein it in. The process becomes political in our opponents’ eyes when the people rise up to exercise their freedom of speech as protected by the Constitution and the courts.”

Vander Plaats has organized a campaign to oust Ternus, Baker, and Streit called “Iowa For Freedom,” and has been barnstorming the state explaining to Iowans why the court’s desire to legislate from the bench needs to be checked by the people.

“If judges can redefine marriage, they can redefine who should pay taxes and how much, who can own and carry a gun and whose private property rights get protected - or do not,” Vander Plaats argued in an op-ed.

 
Vander Plaats argued that the Iowa Supreme Court violated the law in three large ways: first invalidating Iowan principles by striking down its own DOMA, second usurping the role of legislature by enacting from the bench a new law legalizing same-sex “marriage,” and thirdly, executing the law demanding its enforcement, which is a function of the executive branch, by ordering all 99 counties to implement the decision.

"We need to vote them off the bench to send a message across Iowa that we, the people, still have the power," said Vander Plaats. "Not only will it send a message here in Iowa, but it will send a message in California, in Arizona and across the country that the courts have really taken on too much power."

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10090906.html

---

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

[wagglebee]

Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

[manc]

good now can anyone tell me please if OH is trying to get normal marriage back to the state or is any other state doing the same like NH or MA, CT

[traditional1]

"And, maybe Federal Judges should be liable to recall after 8 years rather having lifetime appointments..."

On the one hand, removal of Activist USSC Judges (like Sotomayer and now Dufus Kagan) would be great; but IF the USSC gets packed with conservatives, and the entitlement-dependency continues to grow with Amnesty, it's quite likely that we could have ANOTHER Usurper/Commie in the White House at that time, nominating even WORSE replacements that we would have to endure for 8 years, in which time there will be no USA to save (we'll be just another turd world country in the UN's dictatorship).

[ken5050]

any polling data on this?

[BigEdLB]

I know. I am here and voted no on those three stooges.
Rose Bird was just the most arrogant and visible, so I used her as an example....

[jnsun]

If judges want to legislate from the bench. Then they should be subject to the voters like legislators.

Exactly. All over the nation right now the legal fraternity is acting with vengeance, that is with Ego, with vindictiveness, to prove they are the "law," exclusively.

But each and every one of us must live by, agree to, and hence understand, the law. Ignorance is, I believe, no excuse. Judges and lawyers, those who specialize in the "law" are every bit as corruptible and humanly fallible as anyone else on this forum or on this planet. It is demonstrated regularly.

Hence in an egalitarian society there can be NO better option than the choice of the people, no matter how flawed. In a court of "law" one can certainly pay to have a prostitute lawyer speak or research, and a Judge sit as a referee, but there can be no more fair and egalitarian judgement than by a jury of citizen peers. (Lawyers hated the OJ Simpson result). That's simply the way it humanly must be, and it is the ancient Greeks who first came to that conscious realization.

Sandra Day O'Conner here is simply showing her Ego and personal bigotry. This whole contemporary US scenario is exactly tantamount to the RC heirarchy before the Reformation; "they" were the ones to issue judgement, us commoners must not interpret the Latin, and it should not made accessible (by vernacular translation).

One of the major bigotries behind the orchestrated hate of GWB was that he was not a lawyer. And of course the United States has multiple times more lawyers per capita than any other country, and look at our Congress. They need to feed.

I agree that regular frequent election of Justices can also be problematic, but the Iowa amendment seems masterfully reasonable. I wish it also applied in the US Constitution. The Founders may have made a mistake here, but that is a different argument and concerns the moral/ideological background in which they operated.

Johnny Suntrade, the Suntrade Institute

[EternalVigilance]

My note to the editor of LifeSiteNews:

Mr. Westen,

I love your site. We push practically everything you publish out to thousands of our people all over the country every day. The content is usually excellent.

But, as an Iowan and a constitutionalist, I must take issue with this headline:

Iowans Seek to Sack Three Judges who Legalized Gay “Marriage”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10090906.html

Judges cannot “legalize” anything. They do not possess legislative power, nor the authority to amend constitutions. They make decisions in particular cases and then publish their opinions to explain their decisions.

This is, sadly, a common error. But it is a very serious one that plays directly into the hands of the Left and their judicial supremacist fellow travelers.

And this is not mere semantics. The idea that judges legalize things goes directly to whether we still enjoy the American constitutional form of divided, limited, republican self-government, or if we now truly do live instead under a judicial oligarchy.

Thank you for your kind consideration of my objection and for your continued effective fight for the innocent children.

And by the way. The article itself was great.

For Life, Liberty, and the Constitution,

Tom Hoefling
Chairman, America’s Independent Party
Editor, AIPNews.com

tomhoefling@gmail.com

[JSDude1]

I don’t know but I am going to support this anyway, a long shot like this would be like the “shot heard around the country” or “across the bow” and scare a whole lot of judicial activists if suceed! Crazier thing have happened!

[TRY ONE]

Wasn't ‘ol Sandra Day O’Connor the deciding vote that overturned LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, and hence, killed ALL Sodomy Laws FOREVER !?!?!?

[GregoryFul]

O'Connor asserted that “the judges should not be subject to retaliation" from voters for the decisions they render.

Instead, they should be removed because clearly they are complete decoupled, insane people who should not be anywhere near a good office of the people.

[Sola Veritas]

“We believe it has been politicized and that is why we have the retention vote,” Vander Plaats said. “The retention vote is an accountability mechanism. When court gets out of balance, the people then have a say and can rein it in. The process becomes political in our opponents’ eyes when the people rise up to exercise their freedom of speech as protected by the Constitution and the courts.”

Well said. That is exactly why most state level supreme courts justices are subject to be “sustained” on regular intervals.

I wished at time that the SCOTUS justices were subject to removal by failure to be “sustained.” The court is already a political animal and long since lost any “honest broker” standing.

[DBeers]

Go Iowa!

[GregoryFul]

Nonsense, 4 years, then hung.

[GregoryFul]

Ignorance is, I believe, no excuse.

I disagree - there is enacted a bottomless pit of laws that no one could possibly be acquainted with. Now if the lawmakers were limited to 10 laws - enough for God - I could subscribe to that nostrum, otherwise, STFU, we are daily harassed with an insane tidal wave of "laws."

[goat granny]

Same in Michigan, appointed then have to run for reelection, that the only reason the Michigan SC stays on the conservative side....its on a non partisan ballot...if you don’t read,you don’t know who is liberal or conservative. Those that vote in the cities of Detroit and Flint, etc, don’t know a democrat judge from a republican one....

[topher]

Your speculation might be right, but how can we get worse judges?

[topher]

Ping. What has become of the ND88? Is there judicial action pending against these 88 people because of Notre Dame?

[traditional1]

"how can we get worse judges?"

Just keep praying nothing happens to Alito, Thomas, or Scalia. Thomas and Scalia are getting up in years, and you KNOW that Progressives will fillibuster if necessary to keep putting Progressive Acitivist Judges on the USSC EVERY time there's an opening. Only hope Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens leave the court before the others, as Sotomayer and Kagan are there for the next 20 years or so. THAT is the biggest s&(* stain of The Messiah's Presidency, IMHO. We're stuck with them now and can only hope to offset them, so their agenda can't be achieved.

[2111USMC]

I can see November from my house.

[snowflake2428]

I don’t get your beef with the headline. It seems pretty accurate. One day gay marriage is illegal in Iowa. Then some activist judges make a ruling. The next day gays are rushing to wedding chapels to get legally “married”. Gay marriage wouldn’t be legal without the actions of these judges. Where am I wrong here and what would your headline be for this article? Oh, and another thing: I hope all three of them get canned.