Posted on 09/25/2010 4:54:54 AM PDT by reaganaut1
After the State Supreme Court here stunned the nation by making this the first state in the heartland to allow same-sex marriage, Iowa braced for its sleepy judicial elections to turn into referendums on gay marriage.
The three Supreme Court justices on the ballot this year are indeed the targets of a well-financed campaign to oust them. But the effort has less to do with undoing same-sex marriage — which will remain even if the judges do not — than sending a broader message far beyond this state’s borders: voters can remove judges whose opinions they dislike.
Around the country, judicial elections that were designed to be as apolitical as possible are suddenly as contentious as any another race.
In Kansas, anti-abortion activists are seeking to recall a justice. In Illinois, business interests are campaigning against the chief justice after a case that removed a cap on malpractice liability, prompting him to run a television ad that opens with the declaration, “I am not a politician.” And a conservative group called Clear the Bench Colorado is citing a host of decisions in seeking to oust the full slate of justices on the ballot there, urging voters, “Be a citizen, not a subject.”
The merit selection system, which is used to pick supreme court justices in 16 states, including Colorado, Iowa and Kansas, was established to reduce politics’ influence on the composition of the judiciary, in part by avoiding the expensive and bitter campaigns seen in states where two candidates compete. (For each vacant post in Iowa, a committee nominates three candidates, one of whom is named by the governor. Judges stand unopposed for retention after their first year and then every eight years.)
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Indirectly, the NYT can be useful to conservatives. If they are worried about some trend -- such as competitive judicial elections -- then I'm probably for it.
Following the law apparently is not a criteria of merit in the selection system.
interesting....
Sure it will remain, until the new Justices reverse it.
The media “elites” have just woke up to the fact that Americans are “mad as hell and they are not going to take it anymore”. TOOO LATE!
\
Did they really think that the TPM et al was some kind of Sunday Social?
Florida freepers: There is a movement afoot to oust Justices Perry and Labarga in Nov due to their decision to not allow us to vote against obamacare.
The Slimes has made it clear for decades that it merely carries water for the Party of the Single Party State. Thanks reaganaut1. Semi-related sidebar blast from the recent past:
‘Prepare for war’ on tea partiers, gun owners, says New Black Panther chairman
washingtonexaminer.com | May 27, 2010 | David Freddoso
Posted on 05/27/2010 12:12:52 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2522463/posts
>>>>(For each vacant post in Iowa, a committee nominates three candidates, one of whom is named by the governor. Judges stand unopposed for retention after their first year and then every eight years.)
The “committee” is a bunch of lawyers... and they have a history of late of nominating other lawyers with a strong history political donations skewed to one party in particular, and it ain’t the Republican party.
Iowa’s selection system is seriously screwed up... the retention votes are a great thing, albeit one that’s seldom ousted a judge - it’s possible if people are pissed enough - and this might be the year.
What is going on regarding FL?
I look forward to clearing tyrannical rodents from the bench.
I know to vote against the Supremes here in Iowa, but I’ve got 9 lower court judges on my ballot about whom I know little or nothing. Can any Iowa Freepers point me to resources so I can cast intelligent votes on them? Or should I just exercise the imprecise tactic of voting against all of them? I know that ALL the judges in Iowa aren’t bad. For years I was proud to have a cousin frequently rated as the worst judge in the state... by liberal rating groups. He’s now retired and we could use more like he was. But I’m now not even finding liberal ratings to flip and use against them.
In this context, “The merit selection system” is liberal codespeak for picking liberal judges and excluding conservative judges. The bar association should always be excluded from choosing judges as a matter of conflict of interest.
It's about time. We've had stealth judicial elections for a long time. Not many people investigate the judges on the ballot, so a lot of really stinky ones get elected. Vote 'em out.
Thanks for that update, the issue had passed me by. Two negative votes on the way.
I fondly remember the ousting in California long ago of Rose Bird (sp?). In a state court famous for being left of Lenin, she was a standout.
The real problem is the way the judges are chosen. What few realize is that a committee made up of DEMOCRAT lawyers belonging to the bar association gives the governor a list of three names. He must choose one of them or the SC Justice will do it.
A study was done on campaign donations by the SC judges and guess what? They gave heavily to Democrats. The system is corrupt and it is even possible that if these three judges are thrown out, they can be renominated and places right back on the SC.
Still not going to fix the real problem.
In 5-2 Ruling, Florida Supreme Court Rejects Ballot Measure Banning Federal Health Reform
http://flaglerlive.com/10060/supreme-court-health-care-reform
Canady and Polston dissented. LaBarga and Perry were among the majority, as you said. All four are on the ballot for retention.
BTTT for research of the FL Supreme Retention
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.