3 Iowa justices removed after gay marriage ruling

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iowa_court_gay_marriage

DES MOINES, Iowa – 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 Iowa voters have removed a Supreme Court justice since the current system began in 1962.

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.

They were 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.

Gay marriage opponents spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the campaign. A group of former governors, lawyers and judges said the justices' removal would threaten Iowa's independent judiciary.

This is outrageous. But, of course, as irrationally justifiable as any other act in the political realm.

David Baker is a lovely man. The others I have never met.

I'm very curious. Does the modern media era actually inhibit the progress of civil rights? Is the indifferent populace actually more susceptible to manipulation?

Again, I am saddened. Iowa was the first state west of the Mississippi to allow interracial marriage, and has always been the most liberal of the heartland states. Has this ended?

Let's see: we've outsourced our jobs and now we've got massive unemployment. We've taken the proceeds of an economy that is based less and less on actually making stuff, plus borrowed money, and spent it on things that go bang and disappear, so now we've got even more trillions of debt and nothing to show for it. And we're still as dependent on oil as we've ever been.

Rome is burning, and it's not because god is angry about the gays!

Is this why voters elected politicians who basically ransacked and bankrupted the country? AAAAAAaahhh! You EEeediots!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR6KjNmN2BA[/youtube]

So judges cannot apply the law there because they might be removed because their decisions are unpopular? So much for the rule of law. Nonexistent.

It's of course even worse in that it doesn't even have to be about unpopular decisions. They merely have to be unpopular to a small but fanatical minority backed by lots of money - as in this case.

I also want to express my disgust about what happened with Alan Grayson, who was lynched by the media recently for his accurately drawing parallels between the most fanatical of these Christian fundies and the Taliban. That was verboten, you can't do that, remember, Islam is EVIL! Besides, the only American politicians and leaders who can have "Taliban" prefixing their names and be accepted by the media hydra are pro-gay, pro-pot, pro-right to choose pro-peace totally socially liberal candidates! You know, the sorts whose ideas for organising society are identical to those of the Taliban!

Grayson was also totally right when calling Republicans out for their social Darwinism... and he actually went after the banks and financial criminals out there. Naturally the media is concluding that the Triumph of the Teabaggers is inevitable, that "left-wing populism" is a dead end ... naturally. The media is a huge part of the problem. Alan Grayson deserves so much commendation for his doing the right thing and not giving in to these despicable forces.

I always thought that the case in favour of homosexual marriage in the US of A was just as straightforward as the case for interracial marriage (Loving vs Virginia). At least, I understood the Loving case (and the abolition of anti-miscegenation laws in the seceding states and a few others) to be the precedent for their decision. And if they don't like it, too bad.

The real folly--the one that required three separate amendments to the Constitution (the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth ones) was the Dred Scott Decision. That decision is infamous for these words of Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice (1836-1864), Supreme Court of the US: "[Black Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights that a white man was bound to respect." So, why shouldn't the practice of slavery continue? Why shouldn't slave owners enjoy the benefits of the Fugitive Slave Act, declared constitutional by the Dred Scott case?

The story suggests that Iowans too can be deceived by the chimera of "states' rights."

I wonder if this is what neo-conservatives prefer from their judges.

It's a fine balance between democracy and equality and the pursuit of happiness.

If put to a state vote, at one time, in some states, voters would have denied women the right to vote, civil rights for African Americans, and would have banned mixed race marriages.

Voters also tend to be incredibly short sighted as a collective mind.

On the other hand, voters should also have some say over the administration of their country an what social norms will and won't be legally acceptable.

It's a fine line indeed.

I speculate that on the subject of gay marriage, this is just going to keep going back and forth until the general population because overwhelmingly accepting of it or the general population becomes overwhelmingly religious and unaccepting of it.

If the equal protection clause stands for anything, it is the proposition that the majority cannot be allowed to dictate the rights of minorities.

xenon 13 has it absolutely right--the rule of law is imperiled by subjecting judges to the scrutiny of the electorate.

Electing judges is just a plain bad idea.

ruveyn

The minority isn't allowed to trample all over the majority either. A lot of conservatives have a problem with gay marriage because it includes the word "marriage." Ever consider that you could try to call it something else and you wouldn't get as much of an angry backlash for starters.

Second of all, coupled with "hate crimes" legislation it can be argued the combination of what the judges did and the "hate crimes" laws could be used to stifle religious freedom.

Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone who isn't gay. Secondly, I don't really care how willing some conservatives might be to compromise on the issue; if they're demanding that we call it something else or create an entirely separate institution identical to marriage in every way except gay, they're still being tyrannical.

Frankly, I think people who will only agree with civil unions just don't want to see a society in which homosexual relationships are just as normal as heterosexual ones. I can't imagine that, after this issue is whole issue is resolved and we run out of LGBT causes for which to advocate, that heterosexual couples will be "getting married" while homosexual couples will be "getting civilly unionized." It's same-sex marriage or bust.

Margaret Cho said it best: Wedding planners need to go on strike.

So true. Is this a relatively new phenomenon? I don't remember electing judges even 10 years ago. Maybe I just haven't been paying close enough attention.

Please have a look at this:

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/82000


An argument can be made that judges be subject to recall, if not election. There is some logic to that. Judge Rose Bird of California was recalled after a career of setting vicious criminals free to predate upon society.

Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Bird# ... ation_Loss

ruveyn

Interesting links, thank you. I definately see the argument for recall, but I would draw the line at election. Once you invoke campaigning and fundraising, you throw impartialness out the window.

I prefer to see the removal of judges as a power for the legislature, not the electorate.

lol

Who's doing that?