Iowa Supreme Court Justices booted from the bench...

[Mace]

To no ones surprise, three of the Iowa Supreme Court Justices who declared Iowa's ban on gay marriage to be unconstitutional have been fired by Iowa voters. A number of the lawmakers who refused to rewrite the law are also gone after yesterday's election.

Iowans dismiss three justices
By GRANT SCHULTE • • November 3, 2010

Three Iowa Supreme Court justices lost their seats Tuesday in a historic upset fueled by their 2009 decision that allowed same-sex couples to marry.

Vote totals from 96 percent of Iowa's 1,774 precincts showed Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit with less than the simple majority needed to stay on the bench.

Their removal marked the first time an Iowa Supreme Court justice has not been retained since 1962, when the merit selection and retention system for judges was adopted.

The decision is expected to echo to courts throughout the country, as conservative activists had hoped.

"It appears we're headed for a resounding victory tonight and a historic moment in the state of Iowa," said Bob Vander Plaats, the Sioux City businessman who led a campaign to remove the justices because of the 2009 gay marriage ruling. "The people of Iowa stood up in record numbers and sent a message ... that it is 'We the people,' not 'We the courts.' "

In a statement issued early today, the three justices said: "We hope Iowans will continue to support Iowa's merit selection system for appointing judges. This system helps ensure that judges base their decisions on the law and the Constitution and nothing else. Ultimately, however, the preservation of our state's fair and impartial courts will require more than the integrity and fortitude of individual judges, it will require the steadfast support of the people."

Not everyone agreed with Vander Plaats or the majority of voters.

"In the end, the aggressive campaign to misuse the judicial retention vote, funded by out-of-state special interests, has succeeded," Drake University Law School Dean Allan Vestal said. "The loss of these three justices is most unfortunate, and the damage to our judicial system and the merit selection of judges will take much to repair."

Ternus, Streit and Baker will remain on the bench until Dec. 31.

Justices serve staggered, eight-year terms. David Wiggins is up for retention in 2012; Mark Cady, Daryl Hecht and Brent Appel face voters in 2016.

The ouster effort grew out of the April 2009 gay marriage ruling that stunned the nation, outraged social conservatives and turned Iowa into the first Midwestern state to sanction same-sex marriage.

Iowa's seven justices declared that a law barring same-sex marriage violated the constitution's equal-protection rights of gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry.

Groups that wanted the justices ousted poured more than $650,000 into their effort, with heavy support from out-of-state conservative and religious groups. Campaigns that supported the justices and the current state court system spent more than $200,000.

Two Polk County judges who faced retention challenges survived with more than 60 percent of the vote, as did all of their colleagues at Iowa's largest courthouse.

Judge Robert Hanson, who sided with six same-sex couples in the Polk County District Court ruling, was retained with 66 percent support once all precincts were counted. Polk County District Judge Scott Rosenberg, targeted in a last-minute automated phone campaign for signing one gay couple's marriage waiver, kept his seat on the bench with 69 percent.

Hanson said he was elated and grateful for the support of Polk County voters but was disturbed by the loss of the three justices.

"I'm very, very thankful for the support, and for (voters') apparent appreciation of the proper functions of the judiciary," Hanson said.

Ternus, 59, the most senior justice on the seven-member court, was appointed to the bench by then-Gov. Terry Branstad in 1993. She became Iowa's first female justice in 2006.

Baker, 57, the newest justice, was appointed by Gov. Chet Culver in 2008.

Streit, 60, joined the court in 2001. He was appointed to the district court bench by Branstad in 1983.

Iowans interviewed at polling stations based their votes heavily on the gay marriage ruling.

Chris Keller, 31, of Waukee voted "yes" to retain the three justices because he disagreed with political attacks based solely on the gay marriage opinion.

"It's not the justices' responsibility to let the people vote," Keller said. "It's the lawmakers' responsibility, and they chose not to do that. Legally, the court's ruling was the right decision."

Bernie Noel of Bloomfield said he had never voted "no" on a justice until Tuesday. The 43-year-old said he opted to retain his local district court judges, who "do a great job, and are good people." But the gay marriage ruling swayed him against the justices.

"I don't think they should have the power to change the constitution and take things into their own hands," Noel said. "It's a hard job to do, but here, in this case, I just really think they overstepped their bounds."

The retention challenge triggered a battle never seen in Iowa's judicial history. Television, radio and Internet ads portrayed the justices as both activists and referees. Robo-calls urged a "no" vote. U.S. Rep. Steve King embarked on a statewide bus tour to rally "no" voters.

Supporters of the justices included former governors Robert Ray, a Republican, and Democrat Tom Vilsack, and other prominent figures in government.

Supporters of the justices considered the attacks an affront to the integrity of Iowa's courts and how justices are selected

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/articl ... e-justices

[Cuda]

piss off, douche drizzle. It's NEVER a bad move to remove a judge from the bench. We had the chance to get three of the most unqualified dong gobblers off the colorado supreme court and fucking blew it.

[TheJON]

piss off, douche drizzle. It's NEVER a bad move to remove a judge from the bench. We had the chance to get three of the most unqualified dong gobblers off the colorado supreme court and fucking blew it.

Considering your intelligence level, those Supreme Court justices that you mention are probably 3 of the best in the country. You don't know a god damn thing about anything, so your opinion on ANYONE doesn't mean shit.

[War Wagon]

Considering your intelligence level, those Supreme Court justices that you mention are probably 3 of the best in the country.

What?

[Cuda]

Considering your intelligence level, those Supreme Court justices that you mention are probably 3 of the best in the country. You don't know a god damn thing about anything, so your opinion on ANYONE doesn't mean shit.

That's pretty funny, coming from you. You meant it that way, right?

[War Wagon]

Careful 88, don't wanna' make Jscs' head explode.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Isn't it wonderful that you cannot even have "constitutional rights" unless you have a constitution...

You had these "constitutional rights" before the Constitution.
(this is a tough one for you, for sure...but sit down and think about it)

The written Constitution only guarantees them. You had these rights from birth, as a free human being.
That is in essence what the Constitution says. Your rights are inalienable and are not granted.


Honestly, you are dumber than Moving Sale.

[TheJON]

Considering your intelligence level, those Supreme Court justices that you mention are probably 3 of the best in the country. You don't know a god damn thing about anything, so your opinion on ANYONE doesn't mean shit.

That's pretty funny, coming from you. You meant it that way, right?

IKYABWAI, FTW?????????????????

[Mace]

Guess what? That doesn't change their opinion, the same sex marriage decision is still on the books in Iowa. And soon, when the SCOTUS decided the Prop 8 case, it won't make a difference because same sex marriage will be available in every state.

Yes, it's still on the books, for now.

Isn't it wonderful that constitutional rights can't be taken away by popular vote?

What constitutional rights have been taken away? You said yourself that their opinion was "still on the books". The only thing that was "taken away" was the three SC Justices.....and they can be easily replaced. I voted against retaining them, not because of the gay marriage decision, but because of numerous other changes they were trying to ram down the throats of the court system in Iowa, and everyone I know working in the system voted the same.

[Mace]

You had these "constitutional rights" before the Constitution.
(this is a tough one for you, for sure...but sit down and think about it)

You're spot on, Marty. I have my daily constitutional every morning and I always do it sitting down....sometimes thinking, but usually reading.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

There are only a few unalienable rights, among them being the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The government doesn't grant rights, 88 Sale.

It only spells out in your Constitution that the government can not take away these rights that are bestowed to you by your creator.

Seriously, that a Canadian is telling you this is quite frankly, shocking.

[mvscal]

There are only a few unalienable rights, among them being the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Neither life nor liberty are "unalienable" and the pursuit of happiness is vague to the point of being meaningless. It was a rhetorical flourish nothing more.

If my pursuit of happiness involved the rape and murder of your entire family, you would be shit of of luck because my life and liberty are equally unalienable. It simply isn't a logically or legally consistent framework for any system of imposing a just order on society.

Constitutional rights are quite different. And yes, you have to have a constitution in order to have such rights.

Uh....no. The Constitution defines and limits the power of government. It does not grant rights. It confirms them.

[poptart]

my pursuit of happiness involved the rape and murder of your entire family

[Mace]

But 1 federal judge, feeling some sort of right emanating from the Constitution, told the People of California that they do not have the right to define that legal relationship. It is a totally fucked up decision, at least insofar as the process is concerned.

How odd. Do you think that laws cannot be constitutionally challenged? If a law is unconstitutional, then what should be done? What is the appropriate process to address that issue?

Iowa lawmakers will begin the process of amending the constitution.....about a three year process.

[Mace]

Three year process?

Great, just in time for the SCOTUS opinion on Prop 8. Y'all have fun trying to pass whatever bullshit you want for the next few years.

The proposed amendment has to pass in two legislative sessions and then be put to a public vote. Can't wait for that campaign to begin. :roll:

[mvscal]

If a law is unconstitutional, then it should be struck down as such. That is the role of the Court.

That's exactly what happened. California passed an unconstitutional law, suit was filed to challenge that law, and after a trial, that law was struck down.

California amended its state constitution, idiot. The only applicable section of the US constitution in reference to that action is the 10th amendment.

[mvscal]

Strange that you say that the Constitution shouldn't be interpreted and that you should look at the text of the document itself, but then you attempt to place limiting language where none exists. You will note that there is no limiting or qualifiying language in there. It doesn't say anything at all about race, or gender, or even citizenship. It says "any person".

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Needless to say, none of that has anything to do with the ability of state legislatures to define the conditions of marriage contracts issued by that state.

[Mace]

How can we, or the laws, limit the number of wives or husbands a person might wish to marry in their pursuit of happiness....or misery, whatever the case might be?

Sincerely,

the Mormon Church

[mvscal]

Marriage is a fundamental right.

Says who?

Is there a list of these so-called fundamental rights someplace that we may peruse or do you just make them up as you go along?

[Mace]

How can we, or the laws, limit the number of wives or husbands a person might wish to marry in their pursuit of happiness....or misery, whatever the case might be?

Sincerely,

the Mormon Church

Since you didn't answer my question the first time around, I'll ask it again. How can it be constitutional for the state to limit the number of women, or men, that I can marry?

[Moving Sale]

There are only a few unalienable rights, among them being the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The government doesn't grant rights, 88 Sale.

Hey wait I agree with you.

[Cuda]

you're starting to wise up

[Moving Sale]

Nice try. I posted this...

The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.
Hamilton, Alexander

... years ago.

Now STFU you vapid fuckhole.

88,
How are you not being an oracle when you decide what "Equal Protection" does or doesn't mean? It's not very specific term.

[mvscal]

Is there a list of these so-called fundamental rights someplace that we may peruse or do you just make them up as you go along?

I posted this...

The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.
Hamilton, Alexander

Holy shit sucking FUCK?!?! WHERE ARE THEY WRITTEN?!? Is this like an action adventure movie where I have to find the secret chamber in which the "Sacred Rights of Mankind" are writ large verily upon parchment imperishable?