Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iowans Seek to Sack Three Judges who Legalized Gay “Marriage”
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | September 9, 2010 | By Peter J. Smith

Posted on 09/09/2010 2:24:38 PM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Iowa
KEYWORDS: activistjudges; homosexual; homosexualagenda; judges; marriage; union
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
A good amendment for every state to have!

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

1 posted on 09/09/2010 2:24:43 PM PDT by topher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: topher

Nice. I hope the folks in Iowa throw these bums to the curb.


2 posted on 09/09/2010 2:25:56 PM PDT by Frantzie (Imam Ob*m* & Democrats support the VICTORY MOSQUE & TV supports Imam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

“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.”

Say goodnight, Graceless ...


3 posted on 09/09/2010 2:26:21 PM PDT by jessduntno (Flush the Grand Old Potty. Change it top to bottom. Conservatives only.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

Good for them!


4 posted on 09/09/2010 2:26:46 PM PDT by CPT Clay (Pick up your weapon and follow me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

I hope that Iowans pay no attention to O’Conner. Her home state of Arizona doesn’t.


5 posted on 09/09/2010 2:27:44 PM PDT by Melchior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher
If judges want to legislate from the bench. Then they should be subject to the voters like legislators.
6 posted on 09/09/2010 2:28:21 PM PDT by PanzerKardinal (Some things are so idiotic only an intellectual would believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher
“the judges should not be subject to retaliation" from voters

Oh, yes they should! This country is run by "We the People" not "You the activists in black robes."

7 posted on 09/09/2010 2:28:35 PM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

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

So judges should not be held accountable? Tar and feathers before throwing them out of town.


8 posted on 09/09/2010 2:30:24 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

Wipe them out.... All of them!!


9 posted on 09/09/2010 2:31:51 PM PDT by RachelFaith (2010 is going to be a 100 seat Tsunami - Welcome to "The Hunt for Red November".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

The judges are on the ballot. The citizens choose to vote for them or not under the law.

Does she believe that the judge’s rulings shouldn’t be a factor in the decision a voter makes when voting for a judge that’s on the ballot? Stupid!


10 posted on 09/09/2010 2:32:55 PM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher
The way judicial elections are set up at the federal level there's a very narrow electorate eligible to vote for them. It consists of 1 President and 100 Senators.

Given that the thrust of voting rights improvement over the last half century has been to ENLARGE the electorate, it seems to me perfectly logical that we increase the eligibility to vote for judges ~ maybe all propertied free white males ~ that way we can fight all those other voting rights battles over again over the next century.

Keep the civil rights agitators going!

11 posted on 09/09/2010 2:33:14 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

If judges insist on legislating from the bench, overturning voter referendums and laws passed by legislatures simply by imposing their own opinions instead of scholarly legal interpretations then voters darn right should have the ability to recall judges no different than we vote legislators and members of Congress out of office. The Founding Fathers never envisioned an active judiciary that would take on the role making legislation without being responsible to the people.


12 posted on 09/09/2010 2:34:01 PM PDT by The Great RJ (The Bill of Rights: Another bill members of Congress haven't read.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

Ping


13 posted on 09/09/2010 2:41:49 PM PDT by broken_arrow1 (I regret that I have but one life to give for my country - Nathan Hale "Patriot")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

Could

Iowa start to AWAKEN???


14 posted on 09/09/2010 2:43:57 PM PDT by Ann Archy (Abortion......the Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

Since it’s so hard to find a website for this effort to reign in Judicial activism:

http://iowaforfreedom.com/news

I went to several news articles, and none mentioned this (even those in support), I wonder if that is intentional..I gave a few, I wonder if any fellow Freepers want to as well!


15 posted on 09/09/2010 2:46:13 PM PDT by JSDude1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
Believe it or not, we in California have such a law as well. We rid ourselves of Rose Bird, appinted by Jerry Brown the when he was governor in the late 70s. She found any lame excuse to overturn death penalties, then when she lost, her concession was whining about "not wanting a court of death". Impartiality? I don't think so.

O'Connor was too insulated for far too long to understand why people would want activist judges out. It is a we the people moment!

Rule of law only works when EVERYONE observes it. Even the judiciary.
16 posted on 09/09/2010 2:47:43 PM PDT by BigEdLB (Now there ARE 1,000,000 regrets - but it may be too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: topher
tis a true conundrum in a free society.

judges accountable to the will of the people will necessarily pervert rulings that should be based on statute in order to retain position.

the founders addressed this as best they could; best never being good enough, they chose not make the perfect the enemy of good. there is only one perfect, and he/she/it aint in town.

one argument for regular vetting of judges is that some of them may prove to issue insane rulings over time.

one argument against regular vetting of judges is that some majorities may prove to be insane over time, thus providing insane Judges and rulings.

i honestly can not work this out, a real chicken or egg thing to me.

17 posted on 09/09/2010 2:48:24 PM PDT by mmercier (everything to everyone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher; Frantzie; PanzerKardinal; driftdiver
Sayeth the goddess O'Connor, “the judges should not be subject to retaliation” from voters for the decisions they render.”

Wrong.

“Impeachments are confined to political characters, to political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments.” Justice James Wilson.

Impeachment was for attempts to “subvert the Constitution.” George Mason.

Impeachment was to be used for “the abuse of the public trust.” Alexander Hamilton.

Impeachments were imposed for “unconstitutional opinions, attempts to subvert the fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power.” Justice Joseph Story.

Very simply, impeachment was the recourse when judges intruded on the domain of the other two branches, affronted the will of the people, or introduced arbitrary power by seizing the role of the legislature. These judges must go. Let blackrobes nationwide understand that they can be fired.

18 posted on 09/09/2010 2:49:35 PM PDT by Jacquerie (We live in a Judicial Tyranny - Mark Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Nonsense by O’Connor. Throw the bums out. Great quotes - thanks for posting them.

It is amazing that these judges and politicians think their jobs are a birthright like the Kennedys. “Public service” my arse. They are liars and parasites.


19 posted on 09/09/2010 2:54:53 PM PDT by Frantzie (Imam Ob*m* & Democrats support the VICTORY MOSQUE & TV supports Imam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PanzerKardinal

Judges should have 2 year terms and so should senators.

Followed by two year prison terms.


20 posted on 09/09/2010 2:57:20 PM PDT by Frantzie (Imam Ob*m* & Democrats support the VICTORY MOSQUE & TV supports Imam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson