I Think You Can Guess How I will Be Voting.
I suppose that in the name of full disclosure I must admit that I did vote for Bob Vander Plaats in the June primary. He had very strong support in the Pro-life camp. That having been said. . . .
Iowa's form of Judicial selection has been in place since after the Iowa Constitution was amended in 1962. Under the current proceedure, judges are appointed by the governor from a list provided by an independent nominating committee. After 1 year in office the voters are asked at the next general election if the judge should be retained. & then he or she comes up for a retention vote every 8 years there after. Selection and retention methods and term lengths are prescribed by Article V of the Iowa Constitution & Chapter 46 of the Iowa Code. (Note judges can also be impeached.)
The purpose of this change was to reduce politics in the selection of judges while ensuring the people their right to have judges selected that truly merit being on the bench. It also holds them accountable to the people they are serving. In other words, the proceedure we have includes an additional check & balance.
Not only has Sandra Day O'Connor weighed in, but in my opinion the supposedly impartial Iowa Judicial Branch & Iowa Judicial Branch Public Outreach Committee have crossed the line into blatently campaigning for the retention of these judges. I say that based on the brochure they put out for the upcoming elections. Not only does it quote from O'Connor, what it quotes makes it sound like those of us supporting the removal of these judges want to go back to political campaigns & making them beholden to huge contributors. Rather we want them to be beholden & accountable to the people they are supposed to be serving.
Dad29 points out an interesting fact about the connection between George Soros & Sandra Day O'Connor & what is going on in Iowa. (Iowa's Elections v. Soros and S. D. O'Connor ) Just the fact that Soros is involved rings huge alarm bells given how he is working to undermine the USA & turn it from a republic to a socialist country. His post also includes alink to a World Net Daily story with even more details.
Taking any control away from the people doesn't result in an independent judiciary, it results in a judiciary answerable to no one who then can set themselves up as the final arbitrator. In otherwords, a judicial dictatorship.
These judges rewrote the Iowa Constitution illegally & deserve to be sacked. Iowa Constitution never meant to promote gay marriage. If Iowans wanted it, they could have gone though the process of amending the Constitution. Now we have to go through that process (check link above for details) to correct the mistake of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, that has been put on hold by Pat Murphy & a Democratic legislature who oppose the will of the people. Another reason why the elections this Fall are so important.
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."
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."
posted by Al @ 12:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home