Indirectly, the NYT can be useful to conservatives. If they are worried about some trend -- such as competitive judicial elections -- then I'm probably for it.
Following the law apparently is not a criteria of merit in the selection system.
interesting....
Sure it will remain, until the new Justices reverse it.
The media “elites” have just woke up to the fact that Americans are “mad as hell and they are not going to take it anymore”. TOOO LATE!
\
Did they really think that the TPM et al was some kind of Sunday Social?
Florida freepers: There is a movement afoot to oust Justices Perry and Labarga in Nov due to their decision to not allow us to vote against obamacare.
The Slimes has made it clear for decades that it merely carries water for the Party of the Single Party State. Thanks reaganaut1. Semi-related sidebar blast from the recent past:
‘Prepare for war’ on tea partiers, gun owners, says New Black Panther chairman
washingtonexaminer.com | May 27, 2010 | David Freddoso
Posted on 05/27/2010 12:12:52 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2522463/posts
>>>>(For each vacant post in Iowa, a committee nominates three candidates, one of whom is named by the governor. Judges stand unopposed for retention after their first year and then every eight years.)
The “committee” is a bunch of lawyers... and they have a history of late of nominating other lawyers with a strong history political donations skewed to one party in particular, and it ain’t the Republican party.
Iowa’s selection system is seriously screwed up... the retention votes are a great thing, albeit one that’s seldom ousted a judge - it’s possible if people are pissed enough - and this might be the year.
I know to vote against the Supremes here in Iowa, but I’ve got 9 lower court judges on my ballot about whom I know little or nothing. Can any Iowa Freepers point me to resources so I can cast intelligent votes on them? Or should I just exercise the imprecise tactic of voting against all of them? I know that ALL the judges in Iowa aren’t bad. For years I was proud to have a cousin frequently rated as the worst judge in the state... by liberal rating groups. He’s now retired and we could use more like he was. But I’m now not even finding liberal ratings to flip and use against them.
The real problem is the way the judges are chosen. What few realize is that a committee made up of DEMOCRAT lawyers belonging to the bar association gives the governor a list of three names. He must choose one of them or the SC Justice will do it.
A study was done on campaign donations by the SC judges and guess what? They gave heavily to Democrats. The system is corrupt and it is even possible that if these three judges are thrown out, they can be renominated and places right back on the SC.
Just as a historical note, the Founders batted around different ways of selecting judges. Appointment by the legislature, election through a popular vote and appointment by the president with confirmation by the Senate.
Appointment by the legislature was rejected because the court was supposed to be a check on the legislature and the Founders were sure that they would be too sympathetic to the legislature. Popular election was rejected because it was argued, that the people were too far removed from the individuals and would not know who they were appointing. The president was chosen as the means of appointment because he was popularly elected like the legislature yet had a difference source, the electoral college. This was modified with a hush puppy to the small-staters through confirmation by the Senate.
It really removed politics from the appointment of U.S. judges, hasn't it./sarc.
This article is bulls**t. The voters want to oust the judges for abusing their power.
“...“The system was not designed so that people could reject one vote or one case,” said Rachel P. Caufield, a Drake University professor who studies judicial selection. “It was designed so that people could get rid of unfit judges. It was meant as an extreme measure.” She added, “The system has worked well — until now.”
Translation: The Libs loved the system...until people finally woke up and realized what activist judges were really doing to them.
“In Illinois, business interests are campaigning against the chief justice after a case that removed a cap on malpractice liability, prompting him to run a television ad that opens with the declaration, “I am not a politician.” “
If one wishes to legislate from the bench, then one most certainly is a politician, and should be treated as such.
Since the Times conveniently leaves out the name of the organization that is sponsoring the removal of these Judges (it’s one tactic of the leftwing MSM) in Iowa I will post it for them:
Iowa For Freedom:
Please donate if you want to!