There Goes The Judge(s)!*
Norm Pawlewski has been hard at work for many years defending the unborn as well as traditional values that have made Iowa a great state. He is a former Iowa Health Commissioner. He now works for the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition (IFFC) [formerly known as the Iowa Christian Alliance (ICA)]. Last June he spoke here in DBQ at a Pro-Life Conference sponsored by DBQ Co Right to Life.
Rekha Basu leans about as far left as you can without falling off the planet. Over her years at the Des Moines Register she has been a cheerleader for Planned Parenthood & their racist agenda. Sadly, she ignores the fact that, as someone from India, she is considered a part of 1 of those inferior races Margaret Sanger set out to eliminate. An agenda that Planned Parenthood is continuing to impliment. Of course she is a cheerleader for embryonic stem cell research as well. & like many an elitist liberal, her DM Register columns usually are an expression of her looking down her nose at us hayseeds who support traditional values.
Pawlewski is right, Basu doesn't get it. She doesn't get the real message us Iowans sent to judges accross the USA. We are tired of activist judges who ignore the Cosntitution or rewrite it. We are tired of judges advancing the "culture of death" that will destroy our country. The Iowa Constitution was amended in 1962 to ensure that the judges remained answerable to the people. Well, the people have spoken. We are as mad as hell & not going to take it any more!"
WE THE PEOPLE TO IOWA SUPREME COURT JUDGES
COMMENTARY -Norm Pawlewski
November 3, 2010
TURN IN YOUR ROBES – YOU’RE FIRED
According to Rekha Basu in her column this morning, “Justice not served by vengeful ousters,” Rekha, as usual, still doesn’t get it. Almost a half million Iowans voted to deny retention to three Supreme Court justices, not out of any need for vengeance, but a need to restore the balance of power as provided in their constitution. The constitution ultimately belongs to all the people. Like Rekha, the justices either never appreciated that principle or forgot.
The losers— the elitists, the lawyers, the progressive left are, as expected, spinning their rejection by the voters as a hissy fit, a tantrum. Frankly, this is stupidity on their part. Rekha says, “Now, in a subversion of the judicial retention vote, a band of misguided activists look to have punished the justices……” She says also, “But because of a vengeful vote, that seemed all but certain at press time, judges now have to worry about the payback with every controversial ruling they make.” No Rekha, they only have to worry about controversial rulings that exceed their mandate, defy civility, create rights where they are unwarranted and/or non-existent and act like they are a law unto themselves.
One more quote from Rekha’s article: “The issue is, are the judges qualified to be on the bench? The vote –no people’s actions are at best arbitrary and at worst retaliatory.” This from a Sioux City attorney who served in three of Bob Vander Plaats’ gubernatorial campaigns before breaking with him on the judge retention issue.
When the sore losers start to whine about vengeful voters, out-of-state money, out-of state-activists, etc., remind them that almost one-half million Iowa voters voted to deny retention to these three judges, but allowed dozens more to keep their jobs. Your decision, whether you voted yes or no, was made after a considerable amount of discussion and debate. If anything, the main street media, like the Des Moines Register, went overboard to support retention. Every editorial and most guest columns were skewed toward retention. They did everything they could to frame the issue as one of guaranteeing judicial impartiality and keeping politics out of the courts. Every one of these judges was a political appointee. One article in the Register, “A question of BALANCE,” Thursday, October 28th, made it clear that the current system is controlled by Democrats, for Democrats.
Now that we the people have their attention, we need to work through the Legislature and our new governor to straighten out the imbalance in the judicial nominating and appointment process. That’s why I said in my last commentary on this issue, “This is not the end of the issue of dealing with Iowa’s activist judges. It is the beginning.”
_________________
* For those of you who don't get the reference:
According to Rekha Basu in her column this morning, “Justice not served by vengeful ousters,” Rekha, as usual, still doesn’t get it. Almost a half million Iowans voted to deny retention to three Supreme Court justices, not out of any need for vengeance, but a need to restore the balance of power as provided in their constitution. The constitution ultimately belongs to all the people. Like Rekha, the justices either never appreciated that principle or forgot.
The losers— the elitists, the lawyers, the progressive left are, as expected, spinning their rejection by the voters as a hissy fit, a tantrum. Frankly, this is stupidity on their part. Rekha says, “Now, in a subversion of the judicial retention vote, a band of misguided activists look to have punished the justices……” She says also, “But because of a vengeful vote, that seemed all but certain at press time, judges now have to worry about the payback with every controversial ruling they make.” No Rekha, they only have to worry about controversial rulings that exceed their mandate, defy civility, create rights where they are unwarranted and/or non-existent and act like they are a law unto themselves.
One more quote from Rekha’s article: “The issue is, are the judges qualified to be on the bench? The vote –no people’s actions are at best arbitrary and at worst retaliatory.” This from a Sioux City attorney who served in three of Bob Vander Plaats’ gubernatorial campaigns before breaking with him on the judge retention issue.
When the sore losers start to whine about vengeful voters, out-of-state money, out-of state-activists, etc., remind them that almost one-half million Iowa voters voted to deny retention to these three judges, but allowed dozens more to keep their jobs. Your decision, whether you voted yes or no, was made after a considerable amount of discussion and debate. If anything, the main street media, like the Des Moines Register, went overboard to support retention. Every editorial and most guest columns were skewed toward retention. They did everything they could to frame the issue as one of guaranteeing judicial impartiality and keeping politics out of the courts. Every one of these judges was a political appointee. One article in the Register, “A question of BALANCE,” Thursday, October 28th, made it clear that the current system is controlled by Democrats, for Democrats.
Now that we the people have their attention, we need to work through the Legislature and our new governor to straighten out the imbalance in the judicial nominating and appointment process. That’s why I said in my last commentary on this issue, “This is not the end of the issue of dealing with Iowa’s activist judges. It is the beginning.”
_________________
* For those of you who don't get the reference:
Labels: Margaret Sanger
posted by Al @ 2:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home