Skip to comments.Gay marriage support knocks 3 Iowa justices off the bench
Posted on 11/04/2010 9:58:52 AM PDT by goldendays
Gay marriage support knocks 3 Iowa justices off the bench Comments November 4, 2010 DES MOINES, Iowa -- Iowans voted to remove three state Supreme Court justices, siding with conservatives angered by a ruling that allowed gay marriage.
Justices Marsha Ternus, David Baker and Michael Streit will be removed after about 54 percent of voters backed their ouster -- the first time Iowa voters have removed a Supreme Court justice since the current system began in 1962.
They were on the court of seven justices who unanimously decided last year that an Iowa law restricting marriage to one man and one woman violated the state's Constitution. They were the only justices up for retention this year.
The National Organization for Marriage and other foes of gay marriage around the country spent about $1 million on the removal effort.
"This spiteful campaign is a wake-up call to future voters who must resist attempts to politicize the courts," said Kevin Cathcart of Lambda Legal, a national gay-rights group. AP
This is a GOOD sign.
Slowly we are taking the country back to a NORMAL morality.
“”This spiteful campaign is a wake-up call to future voters who must resist attempts to politicize the courts,”
....it’s a wake-up call alright....high time the rest of the country got involved in reforming the American judiciary.
Can they now REPEAL the allowance of “gay” marriage.
It’s a shame all that money has to be spent on “removal efforts” just don’t elect these nutjobs in the first place!
It’s not “spiteful”. It’s called “conservative”.
GOOD!!! I understand the founders reasons for making the judiciary appointed for life for the most part, but that was done when the life expectancy was in the mid 40s. I’m not sure that this is a case for having elected judges, but it is a good example of how a judicial election is supposed to work.
Did the voters also attempt to change the state constitution so that it was harder for justices to interpret in a way in which gay marriage was banned?
If not, they are unlikely to overturn the precedent the court already created.
Moreover, it’s the wide sense of morality that won over the morality of legal experts.
We were not meant to be ruled by experts.
The voters aren’t politicizing the Iowa Supreme Court, the justices did. The voters are fixing the problem.
You can actually vote out judges? Wow! We can’t in Massachusetts. A friend in Calif was moaning about having
to vote for/against judges in his state. I said, I only wish I could.
In Iowa it is very difficult for the people to vote to change the Constitution. An amendments must first pass the both chambers of the legislature over two sessions. The Democrat in charge of the State Senate steadfastly refused to allow a vote. That may change with GOP takeover of the House and a new GOP governor.
Here is the information about the ouster of pro-gay-marriage judges, written in an understandable fashion.
The justices legislated from the bench. They found law where there was none and “interpreted” it.
They got their backsides handed to them as a result.
You mean like campaign laws, say in Alaska, where precedent has beed tossed out the window.
“Actions have consequences” - Rush Limbaugh
Nothing “spiteful” about this campaign as the idiot said at the end of the article. I live in Iowa, and am one of the MANY who voted to remove these “judges” from their positions. The citizens of Iowa were NEVER “allowed” the chance to vote on this issue..apparently these judges are so much smarter than us average people, they had to decide for themselves. This decision was based upon the fact that we Iowans resent having decisions made for us! To the rest of the panel..watch out, because you are all NEXT to go!
They are political appointees.
If Iowa has a republican governor, this is great news, otherwise A dem will appoint 3 new liberals tothe bench.
“This spiteful campaign is a wake-up call to future voters who must resist attempts to politicize the courts,”
It is those who use the radical lawyers and radical judges to get “rights” dictated into existence from the bench, who “politicize the courts”.
If you want rights in our Constitutions, then go through the process of getting your fellow citizens to support the legislative process of amending a Constitution to formally place those rights in that Constitution. You are creating a judicial oligarchy when you by-pass that process and think “rights” can originate with judges.
If you ignorantly believe that it is O.K. for rights to originate with judges, then you are ignoring the fact that by granting the judges that power they have obtained the power to deny you the rights you thought you already had. It is a process by which, over a long period of time, a written Constitution comes to no longer have the force of law, its been replaced by mere judges.
We can vote out members of Michigans supreme court...They are appointed, but must run on a non-partisan ballot to keep their jobs...thats the only reason that our SC is usually on the consevative side...
Practice what you preach, dude.
It does happen, but it's relatively rare. Judges aren't supposed to just toss out precedent without very solid reasons, but since we are dealing with human beings they don't always do what they are supposed to do.