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

Skip to comments.

Gay marriage support knocks 3 Iowa justices off the bench
suntimes.com ^ | November 4, 2010 | suntimes.com

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: gay; justices; marriage

1 posted on 11/04/2010 9:59:01 AM PDT by goldendays
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: goldendays

This is a GOOD sign.

Slowly we are taking the country back to a NORMAL morality.


2 posted on 11/04/2010 10:01:51 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldendays

“”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.


3 posted on 11/04/2010 10:02:46 AM PDT by STONEWALLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldendays

Can they now REPEAL the allowance of “gay” marriage.


4 posted on 11/04/2010 10:02:54 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldendays

It’s a shame all that money has to be spent on “removal efforts” just don’t elect these nutjobs in the first place!


5 posted on 11/04/2010 10:03:12 AM PDT by Cheryllynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldendays

It’s not “spiteful”. It’s called “conservative”.


6 posted on 11/04/2010 10:03:16 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldendays

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.


7 posted on 11/04/2010 10:05:33 AM PDT by YankeeReb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldendays

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.


8 posted on 11/04/2010 10:09:29 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nmh

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.


9 posted on 11/04/2010 10:09:29 AM PDT by MontaniSemperLiberi (Moutaineers are Always Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldendays

The voters aren’t politicizing the Iowa Supreme Court, the justices did. The voters are fixing the problem.


10 posted on 11/04/2010 10:12:00 AM PDT by skookum55 ("We can give up on America or we can give up on this president ...." D. D'Souza)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldendays

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.


11 posted on 11/04/2010 10:13:34 AM PDT by raccoonradio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic

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.


12 posted on 11/04/2010 10:18:13 AM PDT by Don'tMessWithTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: goldendays
Wish Florida had gotten rid of the two judges that kept an amendment to our Constitution off the ballot that would eliminate Obamacare.
13 posted on 11/04/2010 10:19:52 AM PDT by Roos_Girl (The world is full of educated derelicts. - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freee-dame
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.

*****

Here is the information about the ouster of pro-gay-marriage judges, written in an understandable fashion.

14 posted on 11/04/2010 10:29:18 AM PDT by maica (Freeper 'rllngrk33' coined the acronym 'LAME' the other day...'Liberal Activist Media Establishment')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic

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.


15 posted on 11/04/2010 10:35:26 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Impeachment !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic
If not, they are unlikely to overturn the precedent the court already created.

You mean like campaign laws, say in Alaska, where precedent has beed tossed out the window.

16 posted on 11/04/2010 10:43:28 AM PDT by itsahoot (We the people allowed Republican leadership to get us here, only God's Grace can get us out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: goldendays

“Actions have consequences” - Rush Limbaugh


17 posted on 11/04/2010 10:52:41 AM PDT by jagusafr ("We hold these truths to be self-evident...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldendays

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!


18 posted on 11/04/2010 11:07:46 AM PDT by SandyLynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheryllynn

They are political appointees.


19 posted on 11/04/2010 11:21:07 AM PDT by dangerdoc (see post #6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

If Iowa has a republican governor, this is great news, otherwise A dem will appoint 3 new liberals tothe bench.


20 posted on 11/04/2010 1:08:53 PM PDT by boop ("Let's just say they'll be satisfied with LESS"... Ming the Merciless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: goldendays
"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.

Oh yeah, like it wasn't politicized before when they voted unanimously to foist butt-sex marriage onto an unwilling electorate.

Glad to hear that Iowans aren't completely insane.
21 posted on 11/04/2010 1:16:16 PM PDT by Antoninus (It's long past time for conservatives to stop voting for Republican liberals. Enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldendays

“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.


22 posted on 11/04/2010 2:08:15 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raccoonradio

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...


23 posted on 11/04/2010 7:36:51 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goldendays
"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.

Practice what you preach, dude.

24 posted on 11/04/2010 7:47:07 PM PDT by caddie (<i>Dum spiro spero</i>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
You mean like campaign laws, say in Alaska, where precedent has beed tossed out the window.

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.

25 posted on 11/05/2010 5:11:38 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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