After the people passed Prop 8 in California, lawyers went to the California state supreme court to argue the court did NOT have to respect the election results, the people had no right to amend their own constitution. Now, lawyers are asking the Iowa Supreme Court to invalidate the results of the election in which three judges lost their seats-- on the grounds the state constitution requires a "separate ballot." When will they accept a fair and free vote of the people as valid?
Of course if the election to retain these three judges was not valid--then these three judges did not gain majority approval, as required by the law, to retain their seats and the seats would be vacant until a new election was held. And isn't there a fourth judge whose judicial retention election in the past would also be invalidated and so would forced to face a new election right now? Maybe not such a bad idea after all!
17 Comments
Doesn't the Iowa Supreme Court presiding over this case involve a conflict of interest?
GOOD!
Those judges did not deserve to be removed because of NOM's hateful campaign against same-sex marriage. NOM should be ashamed of themselves! The money spent to take rights away and to remove judges could have been put to better use like helping families cope with this bad econonmy. Anything that opposes NOM, I am for regardless of what it is. Prop 8 will be overturned in CA in the end and there isn't a thing NOM can do about it! NOM is concerned that when full equal rights are obtained for everyone in this country their funding will dry up and poor Maggie and Brian will have to eat cat food to survive...TOO BAD!
Why shouldn't they? You anti-gays dug up a sneaky workaround to undermine Iowa's Supreme Court, and then you carpet-bagged your way into the middle of another state's election to, as usual, hurt gay people.
I love the argument at the end there.
PS: Can we get our money back on Scott Brown now?
Isn't it something how these homosexuals hate democracy and the democratic process? Not too surprising considering that their "equality" agenda is backed by the Communist Party!
@Mike I support marriage AND the rule of law. If a judge can't abide the laws restricting his power to interpreting instead of legislating, he should lose his job, no matter on what side of the isle he sits.
Barack Obama is against gay marraige, and he is never EVER called a hatemonger, or a racist, or a homophobe. So to me, that means Barack Obama agrees with NOM, and therefore, everyone in NOM is neither a hatemonger, nor a homophobe, nor a racist. So there.
Hey, there's actually two sides on this blog! Cool!
Judges sometimes have to make unpopular decisions based on what is "right" (as determined by state law, state constitution, US Constitution). They should be somewhat removed from direct popular vote for this reason. If you want to "send a message", it should be directed to those who make the laws (your local/state reps), not those charged with the duty to enforce those laws (judges).
That said, this lawsuit is trying to win on a technicality that has hyper-technical merit, but the larger issue over these direct elections (of judges) should be opened for discussion, I think other states have better procedures in place.
The three attorneys who have filed suit seeking an injunction to prevent the removal from the Iowa Supreme Court bench of the three judges ousted by Iowans are Thomas W. George, John P. Roehrick and Carlton Salmons.
I encourage you to contact these attorneys to appropriately express your displeasure with their aciton.
Contact information for Thomas W. George and Carlton Salmons is as follows:
Gaudineer, Comito & George, L.L.P.
3737 Westown Parkway
Suite 2D
West Des Moines, IA 50266-6746
Phone: work(515) 327-1750
Fax: fax(515) 327-1250
Here is the link to their email form:
http://www.gaudineercomitoandgeorge.com/StaticForm.shtml
Contact for John P. Roehrick is as follows:
Roehrick, Hulting, Blumberg, Kirlin & Krull , P.C..
505 5th Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50309
Phone: work(515) 243-1403
Fax: fax(515) 243-2336
Those of you who live in the area might wish to plan and organize a lawful protest outside of these offices to publicly shame these individuals for what they are doing.
Ashee wrote: "Judges sometimes have to make unpopular decisions based on what is "right" (as determined by state law, state constitution, US Constitution)."
And sometimes judges make unpopular decisions because they are activist judges legislatiing from the bench, pushing their own personal agenda.
The issue isn't "unpopular", as you try to make it appear. That makes it sound petty and unprincipled. The issue is that Iowa voters feel that these judges misinterpreted the Iowa Constitution, make a bad case for their position and contrived to thwart the will of the people. That has nothing to do with "popular" or "unpopular". It has to do with substance.
Ashee wrote: "If you want to "send a message", it should be directed to those who make the laws (your local/state reps), not those charged with the duty to enforce those laws (judges)."
First of all, Ashee, judges do not enforce law. Law enforcement agencies enforce the law.
Secondly, the people of Iowa aren't sending a message. They are removing a cancer from the Iowa Supreme Court.
Ashee wrote: "That said, this lawsuit is trying to win on a technicality that has hyper-technical merit, but the larger issue over these direct elections (of judges) should be opened for discussion, I think other states have better procedures in place."
These attorneys are attempting to thwart the right of the people of Iowa to self-determination and replace that with judicial dictatorship. One of the hallmarks of our form of government is the concept of checks and balances. That concept recognizes that there will be those who wiill attempt to usurp all power and seeks to provide a means of preventing that.
"The issue isn't "unpopular", as you try to make it appear. That makes it sound petty and unprincipled. The issue is that Iowa voters feel that these judges misinterpreted the Iowa Constitution, make a bad case for their position and contrived to thwart the will of the people. That has nothing to do with "popular" or "unpopular". It has to do with substance."
I agree with this exactly. Go Don!
Thanks, Leanne! I've read your posts too and you definitely have "the right stuff"!
The fact remains that the Iowa Court's decision was unanimous. So if removing the judges from office was a way to stop the "cancer", then it has to be accepted that the cancer has metasticized.
Woody wrote: "The fact remains that the Iowa Court's decision was unanimous. So if removing the judges from office was a way to stop the "cancer", then it has to be accepted that the cancer has metasticized."
Not true, Woody. The cancer was already at stage 7 when the 3 were removed. Now it's at stage 4. That's progress! Further treatment will put it in remission.
I recognize that the people disagree with the judges, but they are not the ones charged with ensuring that laws do not violate the rights of people or groups.
If, as Don wrote, "The issue is that Iowa voters feel that these judges misinterpreted the Iowa Constitution," then why would we need the judicary at all? THIS is why we have checks and balances. The people aren't charged with the interpretation; they leave it to the people who have studied, proven their knowledge and skill, and practiced it. The recourse the people have is to change the constitution (think Prop 8 and Calif., before the lawsuit).
NOM took advantage of Iowa's direct election procedure, just like these attorneys are taking advantage of some technicalities. Personally, I don't see much point in this suit since a separate ballot will reach the same people who ousted the justices, but maybe the atty's want to make NOM pay more money to have to fund another campaign in Iowa instead of spending it on their message elsewhere?
Ashee wrote: "The people aren't charged with the interpretation; they leave it to the people who have studied, proven their knowledge and skill, and practiced it."
This is the same hackneyed old argument we hear in different guises over and over again from the homosexual activists. One would think that repeating it somehow makes it valid.
Homosexual activists repeatedly try to create some ficticious "higher authority" which rules over the American people with no accountability at all. This, of course, is there wish but it has no basis in fact.
"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." So says the Declaration of Independence.
No, Ashee, we do NOT "leave it to the people who have studied, proven their knowledge and skill, and practiced it." You seek to fabricate a ruling elite minority with the power to dictate to the governed rather than carrying out the will of the governed. That is precisely what we fought the Revolutionary War to escape!
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
We, the people, the governed, are to be eternally vigilant if we are to keep our liberty. Our vigilance over the Iowa Supreme Court is precisely the sort of thing which Thomas Jefferson was referring to.
These same Iowa voters vote to determine who will the the President of The United States of America. They vote to determine who will represent them in the U. S. Congress. They vote to determine who will be their state governor, their state legislature and even who will be the mayor of the town in which they live. They aren't required to be judges to do that and they are assumed to have sufficient wisdom to choose well for themselves.
Ashee wrote: "The recourse the people have is to change the constitution (think Prop 8 and Calif., before the lawsuit)."
Utter poppycock! For 48 years the voters of Iowa have had the power to remove judges from the bench. It's the law. Yes, look what happened when over 7 million Californians voted to amend their state Constitution! You and your friends are trying every trick in the book to negate that lawful amendment!
Ashee wrote: "NOM took advantage of Iowa's direct election procedure..."
Now you have gone from the ridiculous to the sublime! Who has been feeding you these inane talking points?
How could NOM "take advatage of" Iowa's direct election procedure? How is that possible? Did NOM force Iowans to oust those judges under threat of death? I'm sure!
When a candidate wins an election is that because he took advantage of the voting laws? That is outrageously aburd on the face of it!
Ashee wrote: "...but maybe the atty's want to make NOM pay more money to have to fund another campaign in Iowa instead of spending it on their message elsewhere?"
Your "concern" for how NOM chooses to spend it's funds is nothing short of touching, Ashee. The manner in which NOM spent it's funds in Iowa contributed to all three Iowa Supreme Court judges who were up for a retention vote being removed from the bench by Iowa voters. Those were the first judges so removed in the 48 years that Iowans have had the right to a retention vote. I think that was money well spent and I hope that NOM sees fit to do the same thing when the remaining Iowa Supreme Court judges come up for a retention vote.
I realize that your agenda is supported by the communists so I really don't expect you to understand anything about the way America works or to do your part to preserve our democracy.
Now run along and go play with the others wearing red scarves.
Ashee, you have been brainwashed and you don't realize that you have been brainwashed because you are focused exclusively on what you want while completely ignoring the process which is taking place around you.
Your agenda is supported by the communists. Their stated goals are to abolish capitalism, abolish family, abolish religion and even to abolish morality. It's written in black and white right in their "Manifesto".
You need to ask yourself this question, Ashee: How does supporting the homosexual "cause" help the communists to achieve their goals? They wouldn't be wasting their time and energy supporting your "cause" unless it furthered THEIR cause!
You and your friends are being USED. You are being EXPLOITED. Those backing your agenda care neither about your nor your "equality". They only care about using your discontent to further their own nefarious objectives.
Wake up! Your only savior is to dissect the process and examine it on the table of your mind. Otherwise you will become a mindless zombie mouthing the propaganda and talking points which have been pumped into you by those who wish to use you to serve their own ends.