Gay marriage support knocks 3 Iowa justices off the bench

suntimes.com ^ | November 4, 2010 | suntimes.com

[Antoninus]

"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.

[Wuli]

“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is a process by which, over a long period of time, a written Constitution comes to no longer have the force of law, its been replaced by mere judges.

[goat granny]

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...

[caddie]

"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.

[untrained skeptic]

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.