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.

[rawhide]

O'Connor asserted that “the judges should not be subject to retaliation" from voters for the decisions they render

Hogwash to a major degree! These judges should definitely be held accountable. How can anyone say otherwise? Hogwash!!!

[Jacquerie]

I snagged the quotes from David Barton's Original Intent, 1996.

[rawhide]

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.

I am expecting these judges will sue to retain their jobs, saying this 48-yr old law in unconstitutional, in addition to being outdated.

[magooey]

If Justice O'Conner has a problem with the public voting on the retension of judges, what other issues does she feel the American people should not be voting on?

[little jeremiah]

Ha Ha!

[Buddygirl]

Ms. O’Connor, (not US Supreme Court Judge), you are retired now. Please retire your mouth, too!

The judges need to be kicked off the courts when they get too progressive...

[TitansAFC]

Iowa Freepers:

Is there any actual chance that the votes are there to remove these three judges?

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

It's not going to do much good. As more light is being shed on this issue we find the REAL problem is the method used to have judges appointed to the SC. Under the current method, even though these three judges can indeed be removed, they can also be reappointed. Our system is rigged. The way it is now, it will always be Democrat lawyers.

I'll vote to remove them just on general principles but the real issue must be addressed by a constitutional amendment.

[longtermmemmory]

How many judges have EVER been recalled?

This is why judges like merit retention.

NONE, ZERO judges from Bush v. Gore had any danger of being ousted, in fact they kept their posts by 60%+ at the voting time.

I HOPE at least one judge gets the ax.

[arrogantsob]

The Founders were more concerned about judicial independence than accountability to the electorate. That is why the federal system is the way it is. It produces problems from time to time with various groups but should not be changed. Judges were intended to be above “politics”.

Iowa’s constitution allows this but there is less danger from democracy in a state than in the nation as a whole.

The danger was illustrated early in our history by the impeachment of Justice Chase and the treason trial of Aaron Burr. Jefferson was determined to bring the judiciary under his thumb and those trials were examples of why he was wrong to attack the judiciary’s independence.

The alternative would have judges campaigning for office with all the problems that would entail taking front row. “I’ll acquit you if I can get your vote, etc.” The influence of the Democrat machines is bad enough this would put them beyond touch.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

They don’t have to. This will show the truth of the situation. http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2010/09/09/a-conservative%e2%80%99s-view-of-the-justice-sandra-day-o%e2%80%99connor-event/comment-page-1/#comment-27989

[EternalVigilance]

Iowa Freepers: Is there any actual chance that the votes are there to remove these three judges?

Absolutely. Just watch.

[longtermmemmory]

why is a state bar forcing members to spend their dues money on retention?

[arrogantsob]

These aren’t impeachments merely constitutional exercises othe Iowa constitution. Nor are they “retaliation”, just voters doing their jobs

[TexasFreeper2009]

I agree, the minute judges started writting the laws, we should of ended lifetime appointment.

In fact, with lifetimes lasting so long now, the whole idea should be scrapped anyway regardless, maybe 20 years MAX.

[Publius]

It was not only Rose Bird, but Maurice Grodin and Cruz Reynoso – all Jerry Brown appointees – whom the voters turned out of office in 1986 in reconfirmation elections.

In 1986, there were a number of PAC’s that were agitating for the rejection of one or more of those California Supreme Court justices. Another agitated for the rejection of Stanley Mosk, a Pat Brown appointee from the Sixties, who was a liberal judge also up for a reconfirmation vote. It was thought that the California Republican Party would stay out of the fray.

So it was something of a surprise when Gov. George Deukmejian, who was up for re-election in 1986, asked the leaders of the various PAC’s to meet with him in Sacramento. The leaders thought that Deukmejian was going to let them down, and they were quite surprised when he asked them to combine their PAC’s, concentrate on Bird, Grodin and Reynoso, and leave Mosk alone.

His reasoning was simple. Mosk was one of the most respected jurists on any state supreme court, and he was also a canny politician. Going after Mosk would make the effort look too radical and create a large target for the national press. Better to leave Mosk alone, and explain that they were giving him a pass because he was an honest liberal. Bird, Grodin and Reynoso, on the other hand, could be targeted as radical liberals.

Deukmejian also told the PAC leaders that after they merged, all their advertising would have to be vetted by party professionals, lest they say something radical enough to discredit the movement. If they agreed to this, Deukmejian would provide the full support of the party and make the removal of the three justices a plank of the party platform and his campaign.

The Los Angeles Times issued a smarmy editorial explaining to the unsophisticated voters of Southern California that the provision in the California Constitution permitting confirmation votes for justices was a terrible mistake, and the citizens of the state had a moral obligation to vote for reconfirmation no matter what they thought about the justices’ politics. That editorial blew up in their face.

Bird lost by 3-to-1, and the other two justices lost by 2-to-1. It was one of the few moments of clarity in California politics.

[trisham]

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

*****************************

Well said!

[trisham]

LOL!

[EternalVigilance]

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

I like LifeSiteNews, but these judges didn't "legalize" anything. Judges don't make law, and they can't amend constitutions. They decide individual cases, and publish their opinions to back up those decisions.

A horrid headline that just plays into the hands of the Left and their judicial supremacist fellow travelers.

[Jacquerie]

Yes, yes I know they are not formal impeachments in the constitutional sense, just as democrats in congress are not “traitors” under the constitution.

No, Iowa provides for the people to impeach and convict on their own.