3 Iowa justices removed after gay marriage ruling

[Newsjock]

Source: Associated Press

Iowa voters have voted to remove three state Supreme Court justices, siding with conservatives angered by a ruling that allowed gay marriage.

The vote Tuesday was the first time high court justices have lost a retention election in Iowa.

The three who weren't retained were Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices David Baker and Michael Streit. They were the only justices up for retention this year.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/11/02/politics/p225611D52.DTL&tsp=1

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. That's horrible.

The forces of ignorance and bigotry win again.

[cory777]

2. Link to great article about the bigotry

Conservative Iowa Church Tries to Oust Judges Who Voted to Legalize Gay Marriage

http://www.alternet.org/story/148683/conservative_iowa_church_tries_to_oust_judges_who_voted_to_legalize_gay_marriage

[jgraz]

6. Paging the IRS...

All it will take is just ONE of these motherfucking hate temples losing their tax exempt status and those greedy pastors will shut the fuck up real quick.

[SkyDaddy7]

12. I am not sure about that...

It is obviously America is running to the far right & any attempt to go after churches will be seen as an attack on their stupid inbred Bronze Age bigoted form of religious "freedom"!

These people are openly defying the law in hopes of it being challenged in SCOTUS...I think we know what could happen there.

I honestly think America has seen there better days...As soon as I see scientist moving to Europe I will begin asking almost any European Country that will take me (Prefer the Nordic virtually godless countries) if I can pack up & start over where in place where human beings actually care about each other & religion is something you don't talk about in public unless you are at church.

[speppin]

15. Thanks.

[Lil Missy]

3. What a shame.

[defendandprotect]

4. This is nuts and fascist .... and Medieval ....

[Tansy_Gold]

5. This is one of the reasons why Obama's hesitation on DADT

will have far-reaching effects.

Had he taken a strong public stance on it from the beginning of his administration, there would probably have been at least some significant improvement in public attitudes toward gay marriage. He didn't lead by example. He didn't take the Democratic stance on equality, and that has a real trickle down effect.

But what do I know?



TG, NTY

[readmoreoften]

9. When you're right you're right.

And right you are.

[Skittles]

10. CORRECT

so much for "leadership"

[NYC Liberal]

13. So Obama is now responsible for all the bigots of the country?

Don't break your arm reaching.

[Tansy_Gold]

14. Harry Truman bucked "public opinion" when he integrated the military

Harry Truman LED. On that issue at least he knew he was right and he did the right thing.

Obama, on the other hand, has waffled back and forth over gay rights issues. He has provided no leadership.

He doesn't have to strongarm anyone -- he just has to lead. By example. By speeches. By all kinds of things. And he's done none of it.

Do I blame him for bigotry? No, of course not. I'm not stupid and neither are you. But I do blame him for not taking a stand on the issue. Or rather, for taking a wishy-washy non-stand that essentially says it's okay to be a bigot.



Tansy Gold

[saigon68]

26. Right On----

Desegregating the military in 1948 brought about the civil rights movement.

If racial minorities fight beside you they have to be allowed to use the same toilet, water fountain, stool in Woolworths, etc.

It was a defining moment in Truman's Presidency.

There have been NO DEFINING MOMENTS yet from the "Present Occupant" :-( :-(

[Posteritatis]

7. Elected judiciaries are an obscenity. (nt)

[Hosnon]

16. Agreed. nt.

[Rage for Order]

20. Really? Then who should appoint judges, Republicans? n/t

[Posteritatis]

21. What a stupid, stupid reaction.

I prefer my judges to not have to demonstrate partisan bias or a willingness to predetermine verdict quotas and arbitrary sentences as a prerequisite to getting on the bench in the first place.

Or, you know, kicking them off the bench for ruling in a politically inconvenient manner, like the Republicans in the article this thread is about did. I'm glad to see you approve of that.

[Rage for Order]

22. Glad to see I approve of what, exactly?

I didn't express support for the judges being voted off the bench; I expressed support for people voting for judges. There are only 2 ways to get a job: either you are voted in, or someone decides you are the right person for the job and appoints you. The appointment process is more susceptible to abuse than voting, imo.

Also, you said: "I prefer my judges to not have to demonstrate partisan bias or a willingness to predetermine verdict quotas and arbitrary sentences as a prerequisite to getting on the bench in the first place."

Why do you think people get nominated to federal judicial positions, including the US Supreme Court?

[Posteritatis]

23. If you support people voting for them, you support people voting them off

As to your question, SCOTUS justices rarely get nominated, never mind elected, for promising to convict anyone accused of such-and-such a crime, or for overreacting to something with ridiculous sentences. And they don't lose their positions if the interpret the law correctly as opposed to the way people want them to.

If you support elected judiciaries, you're supporting those farces infesting upstate NY, or people promising to rule against certain demographics whenever they're in a courtroom, or people who get in because they promised to deliver maximum sentences to every offense and the people, bloodthirsty as they tend to be about crime these days, wanted that. I don't want the same voters who "banned" international law in Oklahoma yesterday, or who push "defense of marriage" amendments every two years, to have any direct say in who sits on the Supreme Court, never mind the state and local courts they turn into mockeries of justice all the time.

It's an obscenity, and should not happen. Period. I don't recognize anything good about it, and I don't recognize the possibility of anything good about it. If you want elected judges, you don't want judges who rule based on the law, and it's just that simple. Don't argue otherwise.

[Rage for Order]

24. You're right, I do support people voting them off the bench

But I don't agree with the (purported) reasons these justices were voted off the bench, if the article is correct in saying they were voted off because the ruled in favor of gay marriage.

You should at least be honest and admit that you are in favor of judges being appointed rather than elected only if you approve of the people who get to appoint the judges. Something tells me you'd be fine with Democrats appointing judges, but decidedly not fine with Republicans appointing judges.

[Poll_Blind]

8. You have got to be fucking kidding me. Wow. n/t

PB

[xchrom]

11. sigh. nt

[Odin2005]

17. More proof that electing judges is MORONIC and defeats the purpose of the judicial branch.

Judges are SUPPOSED to have some distance from electoral politics. The law is the law.

[Megahurtz]

18. Oh No!

These Right-Wing Religious Freaks are going to try and slide us back to the Middle Ages now. Beware! :nuke:

[Countdown_3_2_1]

19. And a Lame Duck Democratic Govenor might be the one to appoint replacements

He's making the moves.
Now that might make for an interesting parting shot, wouldn't it?

[Incitatus]

25. What a bunch of proud, ignorant bigots. nt