Posted on 10/31/2010 10:36:42 AM PDT by Baladas
DES MOINES, Iowa — A Des Moines Register poll shows more than one-third of voters want to remove three Iowa Supreme Court justices who joined a unanimous ruling that legalized gay marriage.
The poll published Sunday found that 37 percent of likely voters intend to vote to remove all three justices and 34 percent say they will vote to retain all the judges. Another 10 percent plan to retain only some justices, 11 percent don't intend on vote on the judges and 8 percent aren't sure how they'll vote.
If Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices David Baker and Michael Streit lose retention votes, it will be the first time voters removed an Iowa Supreme Court justice.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Sadly, if the judges are removed, wimp RINO Branstad and the Iowa GOP faux-leadership will simply put more like them in place.
...hope this citizen movement spreads...I think it will if the three judges get the boot...people from other states will call Iowa to see how they did it....there’s a lot of anger out there over Lefty activist judges.
One wonders how accurate the polling might be - there may be an effort to encourage citizens to retain the judges, and they may be reticent about admitting they plan on voting to de-retain them.
As far as polling itself goes, perhaps it would be best if the citizen declined to provide anyone any information on what their beliefs are.
>>>Sadly, if the judges are removed, wimp RINO Branstad and the Iowa GOP faux-leadership will simply put more like them in place.
Sorry, but that’s not quite the case... it’s the judicial nomination process that the problem. The sitting governor can only pick from the list handed to them by the nominating process - and that is so horribly flawed, and Democrat biased it’s disgusting.
You are correct. But the Iowa GOP won’t materially change the process either.
>>>But the Iowa GOP won’t materially change the process either.
The process can’t be changed without amending the state constitution. Which is another reason for Iowans to vote ‘yes’ on the constitutional convention question.
You are correct.
As an aside I infer Iowa's liberal papers don't think Branstad/Culver race is as close as this Iowa poll. The QC Times, which is consistently hard left on both fiscal and social issues, actually endorsed Branstad and Grassley, but has otherwise endorsed Democrats in every race, sometimes even where they mentioned problems with the Rat candidate and none with the GOP one. The only reason I can see for their two GOP endorsements is they've given up on the Rats in those races and want to be able to falsely brag of being bipartisan. My guess is that many BVP voters refuse to tell polsters 'Branstad,' but will vote him directly or indirectly via straight ticket R, and that their enthusiasm on the judges will carry many down ticket candidates across the line. As the three contested House seats aren't being counted as GOP gains by the pundits we'll exceed their predictions. And I predict Iowa won't be the only state with such stories to tell Tuesday!
Vander Plaats backers aren’t going to vote for Chet (”Kent Dorfman”) Culver. Branstad’s lower numbers come from the fact he’s facing an incumbent, while Grassley’s facing a oft-failed, prune-faced Clinton trystee.
I’ll be surprised if the vote goes against the Supremes. What doe it tell you that Iowa GOP icon Robert Ray is backing them? Heard Branstad calling for their dismissal?
I’m disgusted, but not surprised by Ray. He’s been a RINO as long as I can recall. I remember Branstad running as his Lt. Gov. and being considered significantly more conservative than Ray. At least on relative terms that is still true. I wish Branstad would take a stand on this, but he politely refuses to do so. Regardless of his opinion on them he probably thinks that taking a stand, either way, is political poison and that he’s doing fine without that. Let others, i.e. BVP et al do the heavy lifting here. Same principle applies with amendments via convention vs. via legislature, although I think everyone believes the odds on winning the convention vote are worse than defeating even one judge. History proves removing judges is difficult. The shame is that this couldn’t have come up right after their decision.
Isn’t there the probability that a con-con would be hijacked by the usual suspects? Virtually every other entity is compromised in oh-so many ways, why should this be any different?
In theory it sounds good, but in theory it would be nice to follow the constitution we have, since nobody is using it.
Any amendments proposed via a con-con would have to voted upon individually, by the public on the ballot - it’s unlikely a con-con would come up with anything that would not have public support enough to pass on the ballot.
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.