FIRE the judges too! They are FIRED!
Before the election: Judicially active judges in Iowa need to be fired
From: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=218325
“ELECTION 2010
Fed-up Americans: Fire the judges, too!
State residents launch massive effort to kick out 3 Supreme Court justices
Posted: October 24, 2010
7:01 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Judicial elections across the United States, largely ho-hum affairs that only stand out when members of the black robes commit a crime, have turned white-hot in Iowa, where residents are organizing and campaigning to fire three of the state Supreme Court members who created same-sex marriage for the state.
Supporters of the judges—Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit—are countering with arguments that Iowans who want the three removed from office have abandoned the rule of law and become ‘the mob.’
But former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, who was removed from office himself when state officials refused to allow him to challenge an order he considered illegal, said the judges in Iowa didn’t even follow their own state law—which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Instead, Moore said, they joined advocates for homosexuality in calling such couples ‘similarly situated’ to traditionally married couples.
That view is accurate, said Moore, who runs the Foundation for Moral Law, (http://www.morallaw.org/) only if one cannot tell the difference between a man and a woman.
The justices’ stance, he suggested, is why polls show they could be ejected from their highly paid positions of influence, even though they usually are the benefactors of approval from 80 percent or 90 percent of the voters.
Several polls show that support for the three is running only percentage points above the portion of the citizenry already committed to voting them out. Several polls suggested the small percentage of undecideds probably ultimately will be the deciding factor.
In Iowa, the Supreme Court created same-sex ‘marriage’ in a lawsuit brought by homosexual couples, determining that they had the same ‘right’ to marry as traditional married couples.
But Moore noted that Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act specified one man and one woman marriages, so the justices actually were violating the law they were sworn to uphold. Moore noted that the original Iowa Constitution forbade ‘sodomy.’
The surge of condemnation for the three justices—the only ones from the high court on the ballot this year—sends ‘a signal all across the nation,’ Moore said.
‘People are tired of activist judges who rule not according to their own constitution and laws of their state,’ he said. ‘If they are removed, it will stop this judicial activism.’
He quoted from the Iowa court’s own opinion that it could ‘protect constitutional rights … even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted or at one time [were] unimagined.’
‘What they are saying is that they can give rights to individuals that were at one time unimagined. If that’s not judicial activism …’ he said. ‘What’s to stop them from letting men marry their own daughters. Brothers marry sisters. A whole village becoming a marriage.’ (EXACTLY!!!—my addition)
Former GOP candidate for governor Bob Vander Plaats, a spokesman for a grassroots group trying to oust the three judges, said the Iowa For Freedom campaign was launched because the decision simply was wrong.
‘On April 3, 2009, this court did what it cannot do and God help this country and this state if we allow them to do it,’ (EXACTLY!!! The courts are NOT following the law! They believe that they are a law unto themselves. As I was taught, incorrectly, while in college, “the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says!” WRONG!!! The Constitution says what it says. The Supreme Court is NOT the writer of the Constitution. The founding fathers are the writers of the Constitution. And we the people are JUST as competent to know what the Constitution says as is ANY court—unless we are incompetent in reading and understanding English. It often seems that the members of the courts are the ones who are incompetent and unable to understand the English language. The Supreme Court DOES NOT have the Constitutional authority to rewrite or misinterpret the Constitution of the United States!!!—my addition) he told the Cedar Falls Courier.
http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/article_0c4d8312-d6d1-11df-ac2d-001cc4c002e0.html
A Des Moines Register poll found 40 percent of voters plan to vote to remove all three judges, and 44 percent will try to keep them, leaving the outcome a virtual tossup.
According to the Iowa Independent, U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, has concluded that voters really have no choice but to reject the judges.
‘Iowa law says that marriage is only between ‘a male and a female,’’ King said. ‘No judge can be allowed to remain on the bench who would turn thousands of years of law and human history on its head by discovering rights that ‘were at one time unimagined' in our Constitution,’ he told the newspaper. (CORRECT!—my addition)
Officials with the state Supreme Court declined to respond to WND requests for comment. Nor did Ternus respond to a message left by WND with her personal office staff.
A Des Moines newspaper report
(http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/10/21/conservative-leader-justice-retention-vote-not-just-about-iowa/)
affirmed that the results will ripple beyond the edges of Iowa’s borders.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington (http://www.frc.org/) told the newspaper in an interview, ‘What you see happening here is a precedent being set, and other states will feel comfortable following it.’
It was, according to the Sioux City Journal,
(http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/article_8eb2c54b-3e75-50ba-bd58-5a73dafe2b03.html)
former Iowa Supreme Court judge Mark McCormick who called those who oppose same-sex ‘marriage’ and the imposition of that status by a court ‘the mob.’ (WRONG!!! But, that’s how many people in the judiciary think of we the people. We are the unwashed who just don’t understand. WRONG!!! We, or some of us anyway, understand all too well!!!—my addition)
He told the newspaper, ‘But the campaign here is one that is an effort to try to intimidate judges, not just in Iowa, but everywhere; not to carry out their constitutional responsibilities but to defer to the mob or to what is perceived to be a majority view and not to make an unpopular decision. But we depend on our courts to make unpopular decisions. (NO!!!—my addition) They protect us. (They were NEVER intended to make law!!! NEVER!!!—my addition) Courts exist to protect individual rights. (How is homosexual behavior a right? Is the behavior of murder a right?—my addition) They do not exist necessarily to protect the interest of the majority from time to time.’ (They exist to administer the law; NOT to make law. That is the function of the legislative branch of government!!!—my addition)
To which Vander Plaats suggested of his fellow Iowans, ‘This isn’t about the mob, this is about we, the people.’
No Iowa Supreme Court justice has been removed from the bench by a vote of the people in nearly 50 years. But when voters have been given the chance to define marriage in their own states, 30 times out of 30 they’ve chosen to define it as being between a man and a woman, only.
A similar fight also is going on in California. There a homosexual federal judge who ruled that gender ‘no longer forms an essential part of marriage’ struck down the state’s voter-approved Proposition 8 constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman only.
The issue now is before an appellate court.
Judge Vaughn Walker, who a short time after his decision announced he was quitting the bench, said:
1) ‘Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.’ (Wrong! Repentance IS the only way they can be SAVED spiritually!—my addition)
2) ‘Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.’ (Wrong! And who is he to declare it so?—my addition)
3) ‘The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment.’ (When exactly has any two people of the same gender pro-created a child?—my addition)
4) ‘The evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.’ (Simply a LIE—my addition)
5) ‘Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.’ (WRONG! Since when? Since he declares it to be?—my addition)
6) ‘Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples.’ (NONSENSE!!!—my addition)
Proposition 8 was passed by voters in 2008. In his Aug. 4 decision, Walker declared it violates the rights of homosexuals under the federal Constitution. (They do NOT have a right to homosexual behavior! NOT NOW; NOT EVER!!!—my addition)
Walker’s decision had disregarded the terse warning contained in California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter’s dissenting opinion in a 2008 case on same-sex ‘marriage.’ That case saw same-sex ‘marriage’ imposed by judicial fiat on the state, a result that was reversed by the Prop 8 vote.
Baxter had warned of the ‘legal jujitsu’ required to establish same-sex ‘marriage’ by court order.
‘The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy,’ Baxter warned in his dissent. ‘Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. (IS preposterous!!!—my addition) Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law. (AND COMMON SENSE AND GOD’S LAW!!!—my addition)
‘Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?’ Baxter wrote.” (Very TRUE and POSSIBLE gives their mindset. WE can do whatever WE THINK is right even if it is inherently WRONG!!!—my addition)
After the election: Iowa Supreme Court judges fired!
From: http://data.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/iowa-elections/
“Supreme Court—Retain David Baker (100% precincts reporting)
No: 531,853—54.3%
Yes: 447,039—45.7%
Supreme Court—Retain Michael Streit (100% precincts reporting)
No: 528,315—54.3%
Yes: 444,277—45.7%
Supreme Court—Retain Marsha Ternus (100% precincts reporting)
No: 534,811—54.9%
Yes: 438,858—45.1%”
From: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101103/NEWS09/11030390?GID=OY9OmbFpRrsFA5keDr/Zqecr5QgCdHhYoZkCWdiJ5V0%3D
“Iowans dismiss three justices
By GRANT SCHULTE • gschulte@dmreg.com • November 3, 2010
Three Iowa Supreme Court justices lost their seats Tuesday in a historic upset fueled by their 2009 decision that allowed same-sex couples to marry.
Vote totals from 96 percent of Iowa's 1,774 precincts showed Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit with less than the simple majority needed to stay on the bench.
Their removal marked the first time an Iowa Supreme Court justice has not been retained since 1962, when the merit selection and retention system for judges was adopted.
The decision is expected to echo to courts throughout the country, as conservative activists had hoped. ‘It appears we’re headed for a resounding victory tonight and a historic moment in the state of Iowa,’ said Bob Vander Plaats, the Sioux City businessman who led a campaign to remove the justices because of the 2009 gay marriage ruling. ‘The people of Iowa stood up in record numbers and sent a message ... that it is ‘We the people,’ not ‘We the courts.’’
In a statement issued early today, the three justices said: ‘We hope Iowans will continue to support Iowa’s merit selection system for appointing judges. This system helps ensure that judges base their decisions on the law and the Constitution and nothing else.
Ultimately, however, the preservation of our state’s fair and impartial courts will require more than the integrity and fortitude of individual judges, it will require the steadfast support of the people.’
Not everyone agreed with Vander Plaats or the majority of voters.
‘In the end, the aggressive campaign to misuse the judicial retention vote, funded by out-of-state special interests, has succeeded,’ Drake University Law School Dean Allan Vestal said. ‘The loss of these three justices is most unfortunate, and the damage to our judicial system and the merit selection of judges will take much to repair.’
Ternus, Streit and Baker will remain on the bench until Dec. 31.
Justices serve staggered, eight-year terms. David Wiggins is up for retention in 2012; Mark Cady, Daryl Hecht and Brent Appel face voters in 2016.
The ouster effort grew out of the April 2009 gay marriage ruling that stunned the nation, outraged social conservatives and turned Iowa into the first Midwestern state to sanction same-sex marriage.
Iowa’s seven justices declared that a law barring same-sex marriage violated the constitution’s equal-protection rights of gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry.
Groups that wanted the justices ousted poured more than $650,000 into their effort, with heavy support from out-of-state conservative and religious groups. Campaigns that supported the justices and the current state court system spent more than $200,000.
Two Polk County judges who faced retention challenges survived with more than 60 percent of the vote, as did all of their colleagues at Iowa’s largest courthouse.
Judge Robert Hanson, who sided with six same-sex couples in the Polk County District Court ruling, was retained with 66 percent support once all precincts were counted. Polk County District Judge Scott Rosenberg, targeted in a last-minute automated phone campaign for signing one gay couple’s marriage waiver, kept his seat on the bench with 69 percent.
Hanson said he was elated and grateful for the support of Polk County voters but was disturbed by the loss of the three justices.
‘I’m very, very thankful for the support, and for (voters’) apparent appreciation of the proper functions of the judiciary,’ Hanson said. (Like many judges, he does NOT know the proper functions of the judiciary or, at least, does not follow them. The Supreme Court members were targeted because they were the final authority not because this lower court judge was carrying out a “proper function” of the judiciary. As the article states, this is the first time in a long time a seating Supreme Court judge has been removed in Iowa. Retention elections in the past were automatic. Judges are retained because voters don’t know anything about them and because they have been sold a bill of goods that this violation of their oath of office is a “proper judicial function”—my addition.)
Ternus, 59, the most senior justice on the seven-member court, was appointed to the bench by then-Gov. Terry Branstad in 1993. She became Iowa’s first female justice in 2006.
Baker, 57, the newest justice, was appointed by Gov. Chet Culver in 2008.
Streit, 60, joined the court in 2001. He was appointed to the district court bench by Branstad in 1983.
Iowans interviewed at polling stations based their votes heavily on the gay marriage ruling.
Chris Keller, 31, of Waukee voted ‘yes’ to retain the three justices because he disagreed with political attacks based solely on the gay marriage opinion.
‘It’s not the justices’ responsibility to let the people vote,’ Keller said. ‘It’s the lawmakers’ responsibility, and they chose not to do that. Legally, the court’s ruling was the right decision.’
Bernie Noel of Bloomfield said he had never voted ‘no’ on a justice until Tuesday. The 43-year-old said he opted to retain his local district court judges, who ‘do a great job, and are good people.’ But the gay marriage ruling swayed him against the justices.
‘I don’t think they should have the power to change the constitution and take things into their own hands,’ Noel said. ‘It’s a hard job to do, but here, in this case, I just really think they overstepped their bounds.’
The retention challenge triggered a battle never seen in Iowa’s judicial history. Television, radio and Internet ads portrayed the justices as both activists and referees. Robo-calls urged a ‘no’ vote. U.S. Rep. Steve King embarked on a statewide bus tour to rally ‘no’ voters.
Supporters of the justices included former governors Robert Ray, a Republican, and Democrat Tom Vilsack, and other prominent figures in government.
Supporters of the justices considered the attacks an affront to the integrity of Iowa’s courts and how justices are selected.”
I had the first story in October, of course, and had hoped to post it before the election. However, I was not able to do so. I was going to let it slide until yesterday when I heard a local, morning talk show. There are two talk show hosts on this local program. In my opinion neither one knows or understands much about politics and government. Anyway, one of them was lamenting that the citizens of Iowa dared to vote out these three judges.
He was and is wrong! The citizens of Iowa did EXACTLY what they should have done and EXACTLY what the law was intended to provide—an opportunity for we the people to remove members of the judiciary WHO OVERSTEP their authority. This occurs MUCH too often at the federal level and also at the State level, as in this case. I did not check this to be sure, but I believe that every State that allows homosexual marriage or “unions”, which is marriage by a different name, does so only after a State court overstepped its Constitutional authority.
To equate homosexual behavior as a civil right is nonsense and contrary to the WILL of GOD. Homosexual behavior is just that—a behavior. IT IS NOT A RIGHT!!! Congress and the States need to STOP the judicial activism of members of the judiciary who violate their oath of office believing that they have the authority and power to write law. They DO NOT!!!
Congress and the States need to do more of this NOT less! Hopefully, this will be a turning point and citizens of the States and Congress do their duty and start to reign in the judicial activism of uncontrolled members of the court at all levels. It is about TIME. GOOD for the citizens of Iowa and for Congressman Steve King for leading this fight against tyranny. Because, that is what has been happening throughout the United States—tyranny of a judicial oligarchy!!!
This action by the citizens of the State of Iowa is another example of we the people taking back the nation from the forces of EVIL. Good for them for having the courage and understanding of the situation to act responsibly!!! WE the people are the ones in control of government. GOVERNMENT should NEVER be in tyrannical control of us!!!
Before the election: Judicially active judges in Iowa need to be fired
From: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=218325
“ELECTION 2010
Fed-up Americans: Fire the judges, too!
State residents launch massive effort to kick out 3 Supreme Court justices
Posted: October 24, 2010
7:01 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Judicial elections across the United States, largely ho-hum affairs that only stand out when members of the black robes commit a crime, have turned white-hot in Iowa, where residents are organizing and campaigning to fire three of the state Supreme Court members who created same-sex marriage for the state.
Supporters of the judges—Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit—are countering with arguments that Iowans who want the three removed from office have abandoned the rule of law and become ‘the mob.’
But former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, who was removed from office himself when state officials refused to allow him to challenge an order he considered illegal, said the judges in Iowa didn’t even follow their own state law—which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Instead, Moore said, they joined advocates for homosexuality in calling such couples ‘similarly situated’ to traditionally married couples.
That view is accurate, said Moore, who runs the Foundation for Moral Law, (http://www.morallaw.org/) only if one cannot tell the difference between a man and a woman.
The justices’ stance, he suggested, is why polls show they could be ejected from their highly paid positions of influence, even though they usually are the benefactors of approval from 80 percent or 90 percent of the voters.
Several polls show that support for the three is running only percentage points above the portion of the citizenry already committed to voting them out. Several polls suggested the small percentage of undecideds probably ultimately will be the deciding factor.
In Iowa, the Supreme Court created same-sex ‘marriage’ in a lawsuit brought by homosexual couples, determining that they had the same ‘right’ to marry as traditional married couples.
But Moore noted that Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act specified one man and one woman marriages, so the justices actually were violating the law they were sworn to uphold. Moore noted that the original Iowa Constitution forbade ‘sodomy.’
The surge of condemnation for the three justices—the only ones from the high court on the ballot this year—sends ‘a signal all across the nation,’ Moore said.
‘People are tired of activist judges who rule not according to their own constitution and laws of their state,’ he said. ‘If they are removed, it will stop this judicial activism.’
He quoted from the Iowa court’s own opinion that it could ‘protect constitutional rights … even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted or at one time [were] unimagined.’
‘What they are saying is that they can give rights to individuals that were at one time unimagined. If that’s not judicial activism …’ he said. ‘What’s to stop them from letting men marry their own daughters. Brothers marry sisters. A whole village becoming a marriage.’ (EXACTLY!!!—my addition)
Former GOP candidate for governor Bob Vander Plaats, a spokesman for a grassroots group trying to oust the three judges, said the Iowa For Freedom campaign was launched because the decision simply was wrong.
‘On April 3, 2009, this court did what it cannot do and God help this country and this state if we allow them to do it,’ (EXACTLY!!! The courts are NOT following the law! They believe that they are a law unto themselves. As I was taught, incorrectly, while in college, “the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says!” WRONG!!! The Constitution says what it says. The Supreme Court is NOT the writer of the Constitution. The founding fathers are the writers of the Constitution. And we the people are JUST as competent to know what the Constitution says as is ANY court—unless we are incompetent in reading and understanding English. It often seems that the members of the courts are the ones who are incompetent and unable to understand the English language. The Supreme Court DOES NOT have the Constitutional authority to rewrite or misinterpret the Constitution of the United States!!!—my addition) he told the Cedar Falls Courier.
http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/article_0c4d8312-d6d1-11df-ac2d-001cc4c002e0.html
A Des Moines Register poll found 40 percent of voters plan to vote to remove all three judges, and 44 percent will try to keep them, leaving the outcome a virtual tossup.
According to the Iowa Independent, U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, has concluded that voters really have no choice but to reject the judges.
‘Iowa law says that marriage is only between ‘a male and a female,’’ King said. ‘No judge can be allowed to remain on the bench who would turn thousands of years of law and human history on its head by discovering rights that ‘were at one time unimagined' in our Constitution,’ he told the newspaper. (CORRECT!—my addition)
Officials with the state Supreme Court declined to respond to WND requests for comment. Nor did Ternus respond to a message left by WND with her personal office staff.
A Des Moines newspaper report
(http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/10/21/conservative-leader-justice-retention-vote-not-just-about-iowa/)
affirmed that the results will ripple beyond the edges of Iowa’s borders.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington (http://www.frc.org/) told the newspaper in an interview, ‘What you see happening here is a precedent being set, and other states will feel comfortable following it.’
It was, according to the Sioux City Journal,
(http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/article_8eb2c54b-3e75-50ba-bd58-5a73dafe2b03.html)
former Iowa Supreme Court judge Mark McCormick who called those who oppose same-sex ‘marriage’ and the imposition of that status by a court ‘the mob.’ (WRONG!!! But, that’s how many people in the judiciary think of we the people. We are the unwashed who just don’t understand. WRONG!!! We, or some of us anyway, understand all too well!!!—my addition)
He told the newspaper, ‘But the campaign here is one that is an effort to try to intimidate judges, not just in Iowa, but everywhere; not to carry out their constitutional responsibilities but to defer to the mob or to what is perceived to be a majority view and not to make an unpopular decision. But we depend on our courts to make unpopular decisions. (NO!!!—my addition) They protect us. (They were NEVER intended to make law!!! NEVER!!!—my addition) Courts exist to protect individual rights. (How is homosexual behavior a right? Is the behavior of murder a right?—my addition) They do not exist necessarily to protect the interest of the majority from time to time.’ (They exist to administer the law; NOT to make law. That is the function of the legislative branch of government!!!—my addition)
To which Vander Plaats suggested of his fellow Iowans, ‘This isn’t about the mob, this is about we, the people.’
No Iowa Supreme Court justice has been removed from the bench by a vote of the people in nearly 50 years. But when voters have been given the chance to define marriage in their own states, 30 times out of 30 they’ve chosen to define it as being between a man and a woman, only.
A similar fight also is going on in California. There a homosexual federal judge who ruled that gender ‘no longer forms an essential part of marriage’ struck down the state’s voter-approved Proposition 8 constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman only.
The issue now is before an appellate court.
Judge Vaughn Walker, who a short time after his decision announced he was quitting the bench, said:
1) ‘Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.’ (Wrong! Repentance IS the only way they can be SAVED spiritually!—my addition)
2) ‘Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.’ (Wrong! And who is he to declare it so?—my addition)
3) ‘The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment.’ (When exactly has any two people of the same gender pro-created a child?—my addition)
4) ‘The evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.’ (Simply a LIE—my addition)
5) ‘Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.’ (WRONG! Since when? Since he declares it to be?—my addition)
6) ‘Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples.’ (NONSENSE!!!—my addition)
Proposition 8 was passed by voters in 2008. In his Aug. 4 decision, Walker declared it violates the rights of homosexuals under the federal Constitution. (They do NOT have a right to homosexual behavior! NOT NOW; NOT EVER!!!—my addition)
Walker’s decision had disregarded the terse warning contained in California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter’s dissenting opinion in a 2008 case on same-sex ‘marriage.’ That case saw same-sex ‘marriage’ imposed by judicial fiat on the state, a result that was reversed by the Prop 8 vote.
Baxter had warned of the ‘legal jujitsu’ required to establish same-sex ‘marriage’ by court order.
‘The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy,’ Baxter warned in his dissent. ‘Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. (IS preposterous!!!—my addition) Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law. (AND COMMON SENSE AND GOD’S LAW!!!—my addition)
‘Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?’ Baxter wrote.” (Very TRUE and POSSIBLE gives their mindset. WE can do whatever WE THINK is right even if it is inherently WRONG!!!—my addition)
After the election: Iowa Supreme Court judges fired!
From: http://data.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/iowa-elections/
“Supreme Court—Retain David Baker (100% precincts reporting)
No: 531,853—54.3%
Yes: 447,039—45.7%
Supreme Court—Retain Michael Streit (100% precincts reporting)
No: 528,315—54.3%
Yes: 444,277—45.7%
Supreme Court—Retain Marsha Ternus (100% precincts reporting)
No: 534,811—54.9%
Yes: 438,858—45.1%”
From: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101103/NEWS09/11030390?GID=OY9OmbFpRrsFA5keDr/Zqecr5QgCdHhYoZkCWdiJ5V0%3D
“Iowans dismiss three justices
By GRANT SCHULTE • gschulte@dmreg.com • November 3, 2010
Three Iowa Supreme Court justices lost their seats Tuesday in a historic upset fueled by their 2009 decision that allowed same-sex couples to marry.
Vote totals from 96 percent of Iowa's 1,774 precincts showed Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit with less than the simple majority needed to stay on the bench.
Their removal marked the first time an Iowa Supreme Court justice has not been retained since 1962, when the merit selection and retention system for judges was adopted.
The decision is expected to echo to courts throughout the country, as conservative activists had hoped. ‘It appears we’re headed for a resounding victory tonight and a historic moment in the state of Iowa,’ said Bob Vander Plaats, the Sioux City businessman who led a campaign to remove the justices because of the 2009 gay marriage ruling. ‘The people of Iowa stood up in record numbers and sent a message ... that it is ‘We the people,’ not ‘We the courts.’’
In a statement issued early today, the three justices said: ‘We hope Iowans will continue to support Iowa’s merit selection system for appointing judges. This system helps ensure that judges base their decisions on the law and the Constitution and nothing else.
Ultimately, however, the preservation of our state’s fair and impartial courts will require more than the integrity and fortitude of individual judges, it will require the steadfast support of the people.’
Not everyone agreed with Vander Plaats or the majority of voters.
‘In the end, the aggressive campaign to misuse the judicial retention vote, funded by out-of-state special interests, has succeeded,’ Drake University Law School Dean Allan Vestal said. ‘The loss of these three justices is most unfortunate, and the damage to our judicial system and the merit selection of judges will take much to repair.’
Ternus, Streit and Baker will remain on the bench until Dec. 31.
Justices serve staggered, eight-year terms. David Wiggins is up for retention in 2012; Mark Cady, Daryl Hecht and Brent Appel face voters in 2016.
The ouster effort grew out of the April 2009 gay marriage ruling that stunned the nation, outraged social conservatives and turned Iowa into the first Midwestern state to sanction same-sex marriage.
Iowa’s seven justices declared that a law barring same-sex marriage violated the constitution’s equal-protection rights of gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry.
Groups that wanted the justices ousted poured more than $650,000 into their effort, with heavy support from out-of-state conservative and religious groups. Campaigns that supported the justices and the current state court system spent more than $200,000.
Two Polk County judges who faced retention challenges survived with more than 60 percent of the vote, as did all of their colleagues at Iowa’s largest courthouse.
Judge Robert Hanson, who sided with six same-sex couples in the Polk County District Court ruling, was retained with 66 percent support once all precincts were counted. Polk County District Judge Scott Rosenberg, targeted in a last-minute automated phone campaign for signing one gay couple’s marriage waiver, kept his seat on the bench with 69 percent.
Hanson said he was elated and grateful for the support of Polk County voters but was disturbed by the loss of the three justices.
‘I’m very, very thankful for the support, and for (voters’) apparent appreciation of the proper functions of the judiciary,’ Hanson said. (Like many judges, he does NOT know the proper functions of the judiciary or, at least, does not follow them. The Supreme Court members were targeted because they were the final authority not because this lower court judge was carrying out a “proper function” of the judiciary. As the article states, this is the first time in a long time a seating Supreme Court judge has been removed in Iowa. Retention elections in the past were automatic. Judges are retained because voters don’t know anything about them and because they have been sold a bill of goods that this violation of their oath of office is a “proper judicial function”—my addition.)
Ternus, 59, the most senior justice on the seven-member court, was appointed to the bench by then-Gov. Terry Branstad in 1993. She became Iowa’s first female justice in 2006.
Baker, 57, the newest justice, was appointed by Gov. Chet Culver in 2008.
Streit, 60, joined the court in 2001. He was appointed to the district court bench by Branstad in 1983.
Iowans interviewed at polling stations based their votes heavily on the gay marriage ruling.
Chris Keller, 31, of Waukee voted ‘yes’ to retain the three justices because he disagreed with political attacks based solely on the gay marriage opinion.
‘It’s not the justices’ responsibility to let the people vote,’ Keller said. ‘It’s the lawmakers’ responsibility, and they chose not to do that. Legally, the court’s ruling was the right decision.’
Bernie Noel of Bloomfield said he had never voted ‘no’ on a justice until Tuesday. The 43-year-old said he opted to retain his local district court judges, who ‘do a great job, and are good people.’ But the gay marriage ruling swayed him against the justices.
‘I don’t think they should have the power to change the constitution and take things into their own hands,’ Noel said. ‘It’s a hard job to do, but here, in this case, I just really think they overstepped their bounds.’
The retention challenge triggered a battle never seen in Iowa’s judicial history. Television, radio and Internet ads portrayed the justices as both activists and referees. Robo-calls urged a ‘no’ vote. U.S. Rep. Steve King embarked on a statewide bus tour to rally ‘no’ voters.
Supporters of the justices included former governors Robert Ray, a Republican, and Democrat Tom Vilsack, and other prominent figures in government.
Supporters of the justices considered the attacks an affront to the integrity of Iowa’s courts and how justices are selected.”
I had the first story in October, of course, and had hoped to post it before the election. However, I was not able to do so. I was going to let it slide until yesterday when I heard a local, morning talk show. There are two talk show hosts on this local program. In my opinion neither one knows or understands much about politics and government. Anyway, one of them was lamenting that the citizens of Iowa dared to vote out these three judges.
He was and is wrong! The citizens of Iowa did EXACTLY what they should have done and EXACTLY what the law was intended to provide—an opportunity for we the people to remove members of the judiciary WHO OVERSTEP their authority. This occurs MUCH too often at the federal level and also at the State level, as in this case. I did not check this to be sure, but I believe that every State that allows homosexual marriage or “unions”, which is marriage by a different name, does so only after a State court overstepped its Constitutional authority.
To equate homosexual behavior as a civil right is nonsense and contrary to the WILL of GOD. Homosexual behavior is just that—a behavior. IT IS NOT A RIGHT!!! Congress and the States need to STOP the judicial activism of members of the judiciary who violate their oath of office believing that they have the authority and power to write law. They DO NOT!!!
Congress and the States need to do more of this NOT less! Hopefully, this will be a turning point and citizens of the States and Congress do their duty and start to reign in the judicial activism of uncontrolled members of the court at all levels. It is about TIME. GOOD for the citizens of Iowa and for Congressman Steve King for leading this fight against tyranny. Because, that is what has been happening throughout the United States—tyranny of a judicial oligarchy!!!
This action by the citizens of the State of Iowa is another example of we the people taking back the nation from the forces of EVIL. Good for them for having the courage and understanding of the situation to act responsibly!!! WE the people are the ones in control of government. GOVERNMENT should NEVER be in tyrannical control of us!!!
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 6:00 AM
<< Home