Iowans Seek to Sack Three Judges who Legalized Gay “Marriage”

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | September 9, 2010 | By Peter J. Smith

[topher]

Thursday September 9, 2010

---

Iowans Seek to Sack Three Judges who Legalized Gay “Marriage”

By Peter J. Smith

DES MOINES, Iowa, September 9, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on Wednesday waded into a unique state electoral battle, where conservatives are seeking to recall from the bench three state Supreme Court justices that legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2009.

Speaking at a panel organized by the Iowa State Bar Association in the Hotel Fort Des Moines, O'Connor asserted that “the judges should not be subject to retaliation" from voters for the decisions they render.

According to the AP, Chief Justice Marsha Ternus introduced O’Connor at the event, warning that "fair and independent courts" were at stake. However, Ternus is one of those, along with Justices David Baker and Michael Streit, whose terms on the high court will come to an end unless Iowans vote “yes” to retain them on November 2.

Under a 1962 amendment to Iowa’s constitution, eight years after being appointed judges must go on the ballot for a popular vote to retain their position or be sent packing.

Usually judges have little difficulty retaining their posts, but this year is different owing to the high court – by unanimous consent – striking down the state Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), on the basis that it violated the state’s guarantees of equal protection.

Conservatives accused the high court of overstepping its bounds and engaging in judicial activism by appealing to an “evolving standard” of interpreting the state constitution.

"The April 3, 2009, opinion made it extremely clear that this court became activist in nature. We say we don't want the courts politicized but that's exactly what they did," said conservative activist and former GOP candidate for governor Bob Vander Plaats in an interview broadcast Sunday on KCCI-TV.

The former GOP candidate, who pledged to use an executive order to nullify the court’s ruling until the legislature made a new law, has said the retention vote provides an antidote to the politicization of the court.

“We believe it has been politicized and that is why we have the retention vote,” Vander Plaats said. “The retention vote is an accountability mechanism. When court gets out of balance, the people then have a say and can rein it in. The process becomes political in our opponents’ eyes when the people rise up to exercise their freedom of speech as protected by the Constitution and the courts.”

Vander Plaats has organized a campaign to oust Ternus, Baker, and Streit called “Iowa For Freedom,” and has been barnstorming the state explaining to Iowans why the court’s desire to legislate from the bench needs to be checked by the people.

“If judges can redefine marriage, they can redefine who should pay taxes and how much, who can own and carry a gun and whose private property rights get protected - or do not,” Vander Plaats argued in an op-ed.

 
Vander Plaats argued that the Iowa Supreme Court violated the law in three large ways: first invalidating Iowan principles by striking down its own DOMA, second usurping the role of legislature by enacting from the bench a new law legalizing same-sex “marriage,” and thirdly, executing the law demanding its enforcement, which is a function of the executive branch, by ordering all 99 counties to implement the decision.

"We need to vote them off the bench to send a message across Iowa that we, the people, still have the power," said Vander Plaats. "Not only will it send a message here in Iowa, but it will send a message in California, in Arizona and across the country that the courts have really taken on too much power."

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10090906.html

---

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

[topher]

A good amendment for every state to have!

And, maybe Federal Judges should be liable to recall after 8 years rather having lifetime appointments...

[Frantzie]

Nice. I hope the folks in Iowa throw these bums to the curb.

[jessduntno]

“Under a 1962 amendment to Iowa’s constitution, eight years after being appointed judges must go on the ballot for a popular vote to retain their position or be sent packing.”

Say goodnight, Graceless ...

[CPT Clay]

Good for them!

[Melchior]

I hope that Iowans pay no attention to O’Conner. Her home state of Arizona doesn’t.

[PanzerKardinal]

If judges want to legislate from the bench. Then they should be subject to the voters like legislators.

[concerned about politics]

“the judges should not be subject to retaliation" from voters

Oh, yes they should! This country is run by "We the People" not "You the activists in black robes."

[driftdiver]

“O’Connor asserted that “the judges should not be subject to retaliation” from voters for the decisions they render.”

So judges should not be held accountable? Tar and feathers before throwing them out of town.

[RachelFaith]

Wipe them out.... All of them!!

[KoRn]

The judges are on the ballot. The citizens choose to vote for them or not under the law.

Does she believe that the judge’s rulings shouldn’t be a factor in the decision a voter makes when voting for a judge that’s on the ballot? Stupid!

[muawiyah]

The way judicial elections are set up at the federal level there's a very narrow electorate eligible to vote for them. It consists of 1 President and 100 Senators.

Given that the thrust of voting rights improvement over the last half century has been to ENLARGE the electorate, it seems to me perfectly logical that we increase the eligibility to vote for judges ~ maybe all propertied free white males ~ that way we can fight all those other voting rights battles over again over the next century.

Keep the civil rights agitators going!

[The Great RJ]

If judges insist on legislating from the bench, overturning voter referendums and laws passed by legislatures simply by imposing their own opinions instead of scholarly legal interpretations then voters darn right should have the ability to recall judges no different than we vote legislators and members of Congress out of office. The Founding Fathers never envisioned an active judiciary that would take on the role making legislation without being responsible to the people.

[broken_arrow1]

Ping

[Ann Archy]

Could

Iowa start to AWAKEN???

[JSDude1]

Since it’s so hard to find a website for this effort to reign in Judicial activism:

http://iowaforfreedom.com/news

I went to several news articles, and none mentioned this (even those in support), I wonder if that is intentional..I gave a few, I wonder if any fellow Freepers want to as well!

[BigEdLB]

Believe it or not, we in California have such a law as well. We rid ourselves of Rose Bird, appinted by Jerry Brown the when he was governor in the late 70s. She found any lame excuse to overturn death penalties, then when she lost, her concession was whining about "not wanting a court of death". Impartiality? I don't think so.

O'Connor was too insulated for far too long to understand why people would want activist judges out. It is a we the people moment!

Rule of law only works when EVERYONE observes it. Even the judiciary.

[mmercier]

tis a true conundrum in a free society.

judges accountable to the will of the people will necessarily pervert rulings that should be based on statute in order to retain position.

the founders addressed this as best they could; best never being good enough, they chose not make the perfect the enemy of good. there is only one perfect, and he/she/it aint in town.

one argument for regular vetting of judges is that some of them may prove to issue insane rulings over time.

one argument against regular vetting of judges is that some majorities may prove to be insane over time, thus providing insane Judges and rulings.

i honestly can not work this out, a real chicken or egg thing to me.

[Jacquerie]

Sayeth the goddess O'Connor, “the judges should not be subject to retaliation” from voters for the decisions they render.”

Wrong.

“Impeachments are confined to political characters, to political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments.” Justice James Wilson.

Impeachment was for attempts to “subvert the Constitution.” George Mason.

Impeachment was to be used for “the abuse of the public trust.” Alexander Hamilton.

Impeachments were imposed for “unconstitutional opinions, attempts to subvert the fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power.” Justice Joseph Story.

Very simply, impeachment was the recourse when judges intruded on the domain of the other two branches, affronted the will of the people, or introduced arbitrary power by seizing the role of the legislature. These judges must go. Let blackrobes nationwide understand that they can be fired.

[Frantzie]

Nonsense by O’Connor. Throw the bums out. Great quotes - thanks for posting them.

It is amazing that these judges and politicians think their jobs are a birthright like the Kennedys. “Public service” my arse. They are liars and parasites.

[Frantzie]

Judges should have 2 year terms and so should senators.

Followed by two year prison terms.