Iowa judges' removal emboldens gay marriage foes

AP (NECN.com) ^ | Nov. 3, 2010

[Colofornian]

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Emboldened by the removal of three Iowa Supreme Court justices, gay marriage foes said they plan to press Republicans who took over the governor's office and the state House to work toward a gay marriage ban.

"We held a court in check, but now we want action from the governor's office and action from the Legislature," said Bob Vander Plaats, a Sioux City businessman and former Republican candidate for governor who led the effort to remove the justices.

Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, David Baker and Michael Streit will be removed after about 54 percent of voters backed their ouster Tuesday. They were among the seven 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.

SNIP

...Vander Plaats is determined to make gay marriage an issue now that Republican Terry Branstad has defeated one-term Democrat Chet Culver for the governor's office. Republicans also took at least 56 seats in the 100-member state House.

Vander Plaats and other gay marriage opponents have sought a constitutional amendment requiring that marriage may only exist between a man and a woman. Democrats...haven't considered it.

The justices were the only ones on the high court up for retention votes. In Iowa, judges are appointed, then voters have the option of retaining them...

It was the first time Iowa voters have removed a Supreme Court justice since the current system began in 1962.

Gay marriage foes around the country spent an estimated $1 million...

The judges chose not to raise money and campaign. But a group of former governors, lawyers and judges formed as Fair Courts For Us to support them...

SNIP

The three justices will leave at the end of the year.

[Colofornian]

The homosexual lobbyist group, the Human Rights Campaign, in their press release late overnight, reacted by saying, in part by calling the National Organization for Marriage's efforts to actually hold these judges accountable as one "to intimidate judges across the country. NOM’s president Brian Brown has admitted that his group’s effort in Iowa’s judicial election was actually about intimidating judges around the country..."

The Human Rights Campaign added that "NOM spent an unprecedented $600,000 on TV ads and a 45-county bus tour...'By their own admission, NOM’s Iowa strategy was about sending a warning shot to judges nationwide...'” (Source: Barf alert @ http://yubanet.com/usa/Iowa-Courts-Hijacked-By-National-Organization-for-Marriage-Intimidation-Campaign.php)

[fwdude]

The Human Rights Campaign added that "NOM spent an unprecedented $600,000 on TV ads and a 45-county bus tour...'By their own admission, NOM’s Iowa strategy was about sending a warning shot to judges nationwide...'”

My reaction: and your point is?

Of course, normal people want to warn black robed tyrants that they can't usurp the will of the people capriciously without being held accountable.

[yldstrk]

The judiciary need to stay within the bound set for it.

If the electorate says no, that means no.

[ops33]

I’ve been watching this particular election with keen interest since voting to remove or keep in office a Justice can be a strong brake on a runaway judiciary. The people of Iowa have actually held a judge responsible for their actions, a striking a great blow for democracry. Hopefully, this small election in Iowa will have just as much impact as the Conservative sweep over the country.

[olezip]

Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, David Baker and Michael Streit will be removed after about 54 percent of voters backed their ouster Tuesday. They were among the seven 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.

It amazes me that people like Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, David Baker and Michael Streit are so stupid and corrupt as to try to tell us that male and female genital organs are interchangeable. Human sexuality is for procreation and union of a man and a woman. It makes no sense biologically any other way. Human genitalia have no other purpose or meaning. To pretend otherwise is insane.

[Oldpuppymax]

And if republicans wimp out as usual, they’ll be thrown out in two years. But they will NEVER gain the trust/support of the people again. This is a one-shot-deal for republicans and they had BETTER know it!!!

[madprof98]

I don’t know if this makes up for the West Coast Horrors, but it was certainly one of the most encouraging signs in the election results last night. California may have lost every semblance of sanity, but Iowa is evidently still part of the USA.

[Finop]

Removal of sexual deviants from our courts? A job well done!

[kearnyirish2]

‘California may have lost every semblance of sanity, but Iowa is evidently still part of the USA.”

I think that is why permitting that deviant behavior was so important to libs; if Iowa allows it, what could be more “American” than that? They were very depressed that California & Maine wouldn’t support their sins...

[Lurker]

Human genitalia have another purpose. The giving and receiving of intense physical pleasure. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

[VOA]

“
Iowa judges’ removal emboldens gay marriage foes
“

Some judges (lawyers) getting in the lines of the unemployed...
WORKS FOR ME!!!

[throwback]

One of the most significant and most unnoticed outcomes from yesterday. Message to Soros; load the courts from your side, and we will empty them from ours.

[QualityMan]

.....and we threw them out with glee!

idiot black robed tyrants...now unemployed

[MrB]

Beats hangin’ ‘em, don’t it?

:)

[throwback]

LOL! Amen. Too bad only three of them were up.

[fwdude]

They’d sure better do it while they can.

[JohnBovenmyer]

1) The improvement could be temporary. The judicial nominating commission (currently 12-1 Rat) can list all three removed judges as their 'three choices' to replace each of them, thus ensuring their reappointments. That would be legal and they have the power to do it, but I don't know whether they have the guts to do it. Branstad wants to modify the judicial nomination system, which I presume would require a constitutional amendment. I'm not sure he can quite get that through the incoming legislature.

2) However the goal of getting a marriage amendment to the voters may not be possible. Although the GOP won't quite control the IA Senate there are a couple returning Democrats who have broken party lines to vote to hold a vote on it in the past so enough votes might now be there. The threee judges were all voted out by a higher percentage than Branstad was voted in, which might provide the needed political push to the new legislature.

[cradle of freedom]

This sends a message to every ambitious judge hoping to climb the judicial ladder all the way up to the Supreme Court. This is a small pebble that is sending ripples over the whole pond.

[Aetius]

I’d like to believe that, but if the issue went to the Sup Court right now then Anthony Kennedy would settle the matter.

Can any conservative feel good about that?

If Obama should get to replace Kennedy or Scalia should he win in 2012; or if a Republican President can’t get (or doesn’t even try) more Roberts and Alitos; or if Anthony Kennedy decides he wants the fawning adoration of the elite and votes to impose gay marriage on the entire nation, then it is over. If our masters on the Sup Court vote to impose gay marriage (or I could see Kennedy ‘compromising’ by imposing recognition of gay unions, but being benevolent enough to let us rubes decide what we call it), then it will be just like Roe. An Amendment will not pass, and the other two branches, plus the states, and plus the people, will meekly accept it like we do pretty much every outrageous and unconstitutional decision the Sup Court hands down.

Sorry to be negative, but I don’t things are as good on this front as many conservatives believe.