Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   In an effort to "take the country back," three high court justices that gave gays equal protection under the law are going back to private practice. The first instance of removing a judge since the option existed in 1962   (cnn.com) divider line 495
    More: Sad, Iowa Supreme Court, judicial activisms, Code of Iowa, same-sex marriages, The Des Moines Register, rights of women, iowans, midterm elections  
•       •       •

23353 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Nov 2010 at 4:05 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



495 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-11-03 11:28:20 AM  
Electing judges has to be the dumbest idea ever invented.

I have an idea, let's let the fans vote on who gets to be an NFL Ref. That'll be fun!
 
2010-11-03 11:32:56 AM  
"If the Iowa Supreme Court will do this to marriage, every one of our freedoms, including gun rights and private property, is in danger of being usurped by activist judges who are unelected officials," Vander Plaats' group says on its website.

They'll protect our rights to marriage, guns and private property? That sounds awesome
 
2010-11-03 11:49:08 AM  
The outcome marks the end of a showdown in the state that was funded by several million dollars from mostly out-of-state groups opposed to the same-sex marriage ruling. The vote became very much a referendum on the issue and the ruling, rather than the judges themselves, analysts say.

U-S-A!

U-S-A!
 
2010-11-03 11:49:26 AM  
Like most Iowans, I rarely paid attention to the "Should Judge So-and-So be retained?" questions on the back of the ballot. But the anti-gay crowd, loaded with out of state cash, totally hijacked this issue.

Oh, and someone should tell these folks that new judges doesn't mean you get new laws....
 
2010-11-03 11:53:44 AM  
Bladel: Oh, and someone should tell these folks that new judges doesn't mean you get new laws....

Since Culver gets to appoint the replacements on his way out the door...I'd say these gay hatin' morons just bought themselves three more liberal activist judges.
 
2010-11-03 12:08:06 PM  
Bladel: Like most Iowans, I rarely paid attention to the "Should Judge So-and-So be retained?" questions on the back of the ballot. But the anti-gay crowd, loaded with out of state cash, totally hijacked this issue.

Oh, and someone should tell these folks that new judges doesn't mean you get new laws....


Same here...I didn't even know this was an issue, I didn't even know people were all pissy about it in significant numbers. If it does affect you, STFU. If only all voters and politicians would do that. It should be an Constitutional amendment (It's implicit in the 9th but politicians have proved it needs to be a LOT more explicit)

I hope the not retained judges has more to do with the general anti-incumbent position rather than the gay marriage issue. Again, I had no idea this was coming, when I first heard I just figured it was people voting out incumbents (which they're not quite political positions but whatever), the gay marriage vote was unanimous. No court is going to overturn it and it would take an amendment to the Iowa Constitution to instate any sort of gay marriage ban in Iowa. This should be a dead issue.
 
2010-11-03 12:10:28 PM  
Barakku: Bladel: Like most Iowans, I rarely paid attention to the "Should Judge So-and-So be retained?" questions on the back of the ballot. But the anti-gay crowd, loaded with out of state cash, totally hijacked this issue.

Oh, and someone should tell these folks that new judges doesn't mean you get new laws....

Same here...I didn't even know this was an issue, I didn't even know people were all pissy about it in significant numbers. If it does affect you, STFU. If only all voters and politicians would do that. It should be an Constitutional amendment (It's implicit in the 9th but politicians have proved it needs to be a LOT more explicit)

I hope the not retained judges has more to do with the general anti-incumbent position rather than the gay marriage issue. Again, I had no idea this was coming, when I first heard I just figured it was people voting out incumbents (which they're not quite political positions but whatever), the gay marriage vote was unanimous. No court is going to overturn it and it would take an amendment to the Iowa Constitution to instate any sort of gay marriage ban in Iowa. This should be a dead issue.



The "toss the judges" movement was led by churches & religious groups, and was entirely, 100% based on the Iowa S.C.'s ruling on gay marriage.
 
2010-11-03 12:14:04 PM  
More reason churches shouldn't be allowed to promote politics. I'm not surprised after what the Mormons did in Cali. Fortunately what they did didn't even matter here, except for those judge's jobs, that ruling is going nowhere.
 
2010-11-03 12:17:42 PM  
Ronaldo Vega: Bladel: Oh, and someone should tell these folks that new judges doesn't mean you get new laws....

Since Culver gets to appoint the replacements on his way out the door...I'd say these gay hatin' morons just bought themselves three more liberal activist judges.


Is he allowed to reappoint the same three judges? Because that would be hilarious.
 
2010-11-03 12:26:21 PM  
funded by several million dollars from mostly out-of-state groups opposed to the same-sex marriage ruling

I just don't understand how full grown adults can be so concerned with what 2 other consenting adults do.
 
2010-11-03 12:28:10 PM  
"If the Iowa Supreme Court will do this to marriage, every one of our freedoms, including gun rights and private property, is in danger of being usurped by activist judges who are unelected officials," Vander Plaats' group says on its website.

Yes, judges expanding individual rights to include more citizens, is threatening the contraction of individual rights.

Or is he one of those idiots that think "individual rights" is a zero sum game, and if gays get some rights, heteros lose?
 
2010-11-03 12:28:51 PM  
impaler: I just don't understand how full grown adults can be so concerned with what 2 other consenting adults do.

They're concerned the gay cooties will gay up their children.
 
2010-11-03 12:33:29 PM  
Take the country back to the 18th century
 
2010-11-03 12:38:24 PM  
Judges got thrown out for doing their farking jobs of determining what their state's laws say. Sick. Even allowing that means Iowa's got a farked up political system.

Bladel
The "toss the judges" movement was led by churches & religious groups, and was entirely, 100% based on the Iowa S.C.'s ruling on gay marriage.

Then all of those involved should be stripped of their non-profit status. Oh, but in this country we don't even pretend to enforce the law against non-profits being involved in political campaigns as long as those non-profits are churches.
 
2010-11-03 01:21:01 PM  
patrick767: Then all of those involved should be stripped of their non-profit status. Oh, but in this country we don't even pretend to enforce the law against non-profits being involved in political campaigns as long as those non-profits are churches.

The only thing to do is to set up a mosque to involve itself in politics. Once your mosque is thoroughly stomped on by the courts while being cheered on by the right wing talking heads, you use that precedent to take the fight to the churches.
 
2010-11-03 01:47:40 PM  
The worst part of this was that over 100,000 voters didn't even bother to turn their ballot over to vote on the retention, and I'm 100% confident that the vast majority of them, if pressed, would have voted to retain. Every single person who wanted to recall these judges did, but far too many people who didn't take issue with the ruling chose to not voice their support.

There was a fairly small ultra-conservative evangelical group that couldn't even get their cantidate through the primaries, so instead they turned all their energies (and millions in out of state funding) to make retention an issue. I'm ashamed to live in Iowa today.
 
2010-11-03 01:53:30 PM  
impaler: Or is he one of those idiots that think "individual rights" is a zero sum game, and if gays get some rights, heteros lose?

Given that he is anti-gay rights, I'd imagine that he is one of those people who think that you cannot grant gays rights without denying those same rights to straight people.
 
2010-11-03 02:31:44 PM  
Thoguh
The worst part of this was that over 100,000 voters didn't even bother to turn their ballot over to vote on the retention, and I'm 100% confident that the vast majority of them, if pressed, would have voted to retain. Every single person who wanted to recall these judges did, but far too many people who didn't take issue with the ruling chose to not voice their support.

Turn the ballot over? What are these paper ballots of which you speak?
 
2010-11-03 02:51:17 PM  
patrick767: Turn the ballot over? What are these paper ballots of which you speak?

Iowa (at least every county I've lived in) votes using Scantron type ballots, so you get electronic voting results with a paper trail. The retention questions were all on the backside of the ballot.
 
2010-11-03 02:55:31 PM  
While I agree with the sad tag, that headline reads like a reddit headline. And that makes me sad.
 
2010-11-03 03:15:35 PM  
ozone: While I agree with the sad tag, that headline reads like a reddit headline. And that makes me sad.

Shhhh, don't bag on Reddit...it makes Drew sad when people do that!
 
2010-11-03 03:50:45 PM  
The outcome marks the end of a showdown in the state that was funded by several million dollars from mostly out-of-state groups opposed to the same-sex marriage ruling.


F*cking hell, can other states just mind their own f*cking business already? Seriously, how is out-of-state funding not illegal for state elections?

Was it the Mormon Church again this time?
 
2010-11-03 04:05:42 PM  
GAT_00: Ronaldo Vega: Bladel: Oh, and someone should tell these folks that new judges doesn't mean you get new laws....

Since Culver gets to appoint the replacements on his way out the door...I'd say these gay hatin' morons just bought themselves three more liberal activist judges.

Is he allowed to reappoint the same three judges? Because that would be hilarious.


That was my thought exactly.
 
2010-11-03 04:06:26 PM  
Ennuipoet: Shhhh, don't bag on Reddit...it makes Drew sad when people do that!

LOL. I had actually forgotten about that already.
 
2010-11-03 04:08:39 PM  
That's not very fabulous.
 
2010-11-03 04:09:25 PM  
GAT_00: Ronaldo Vega: Bladel: Oh, and someone should tell these folks that new judges doesn't mean you get new laws....

Since Culver gets to appoint the replacements on his way out the door...I'd say these gay hatin' morons just bought themselves three more liberal activist judges.

Is he allowed to reappoint the same three judges? Because that would be hilarious.


I was about to suggest that. Is there some technicality that would make that legal? What if he just appointed the same judges to different seats than the ones they had previously occupied? Man, that would be spectacular.
 
2010-11-03 04:09:44 PM  
IOWA for Freedom? How farking Orwellian are these people? Jeezus.
 
2010-11-03 04:09:47 PM  
EvilEgg: patrick767: Then all of those involved should be stripped of their non-profit status. Oh, but in this country we don't even pretend to enforce the law against non-profits being involved in political campaigns as long as those non-profits are churches.

The only thing to do is to set up a mosque to involve itself in politics. Once your mosque is thoroughly stomped on by the courts while being cheered on by the right wing talking heads, you use that precedent to take the fight to the churches.


BRILLIANT.
 
2010-11-03 04:09:51 PM  
This country needs to go to war with Utah. They are the root of about 95% of the problems with this country. Mormons in general are the devil in sheeps clothing.
 
2010-11-03 04:10:26 PM  
EvilEgg: patrick767: Then all of those involved should be stripped of their non-profit status. Oh, but in this country we don't even pretend to enforce the law against non-profits being involved in political campaigns as long as those non-profits are churches.

The only thing to do is to set up a mosque to involve itself in politics. Once your mosque is thoroughly stomped on by the courts while being cheered on by the right wing talking heads, you use that precedent to take the fight to the churches.


I'm on it!
 
2010-11-03 04:11:03 PM  
NewportBarGuy: Electing judges has to be the dumbest idea ever invented.

I have an idea, let's let the fans vote on who gets to be an NFL Ref. That'll be fun!


You don't understand. Those judges don't understand the Constitution like the average citizen does.
 
2010-11-03 04:11:42 PM  
Sad Tag is right on. Let's grow up (as a country) and let people be themselves please...
 
2010-11-03 04:11:51 PM  
Lost Thought 00: This country needs to go to war with Utah. They are the root of about 95% of the problems with this country. Mormons in general are the devil in sheeps clothing.

herp tuh teh derp
 
2010-11-03 04:12:03 PM  
You know, at one time if you had taken a vote about how great slavery was there would have been some places where the popular vote would have gone for it. Or is the expression 'broke' for it. CNN you f' with me head. So, like, there should only be popular votes on issues that I decide can be allowed in the public's hands.
 
2010-11-03 04:12:12 PM  
The consentual acitvities of 1% of the population are really important legislative issues, after all.
 
2010-11-03 04:12:34 PM  
Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: The outcome marks the end of a showdown in the state that was funded by several million dollars from mostly out-of-state groups opposed to the same-sex marriage ruling.


F*cking hell, can other states just mind their own f*cking business already? Seriously, how is out-of-state funding not illegal for state elections?

Was it the Mormon Church again this time?


I came in to ask the same question. Why is this not illegal? Any Fark lawyers care to comment?
 
2010-11-03 04:13:06 PM  
Limited government for some, the heavy boot of repression for the rest
 
2010-11-03 04:13:31 PM  
Don't act so surprised. The Republicans want to take the country back, not take it forward.
 
2010-11-03 04:13:33 PM  
In other news, slack-jawed yokels says gays r bahd!

Ahyuck, Ahyuck, Ahyuck.
 
2010-11-03 04:14:00 PM  
Thoguh: The worst part of this was that over 100,000 voters didn't even bother to turn their ballot over to vote on the retention, and I'm 100% confident that the vast majority of them, if pressed, would have voted to retain. Every single person who wanted to recall these judges did, but far too many people who didn't take issue with the ruling chose to not voice their support.

There was a fairly small ultra-conservative evangelical group that couldn't even get their cantidate through the primaries, so instead they turned all their energies (and millions in out of state funding) to make retention an issue. I'm ashamed to live in Iowa today.


Ditto!
Also ashamed to be here after the locals got scared they would have to marry someone with the same junk in their britches.
 
2010-11-03 04:15:32 PM  
I don't agree with ousting these judges, but isn't this the whole purpose of having elections? If most people vote for something, isn't that how it should be?

I'm generally a Republican and I'm from Illinois. I loathe the fact that Pat Quinn can lose every county but Cook* and still be governor of the whole state.

But, if that's how most people vote, I guess that's how it works.

*last time I looked, there were 3 blue counties in SW IL that he took by a combined 582 votes. This farker couldn't even get 40% of the popular vote in Springfield.

http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/politics/election-map-2010/#race=racesInPlay & pres=false&tab=governor&state=il
 
2010-11-03 04:15:33 PM  
I am going against the flow here. Nothing worse then justices going against what has been enacted by voters. It's going so far that little things have to be added to the constitution clogging it up with small issues that ought to be part of the law.
 
2010-11-03 04:16:03 PM  
Thoguh:
There was a fairly small ultra-conservative evangelical group that couldn't even get their cantidate through the primaries, so instead they turned all their energies (and millions in out of state funding) to make retention an issue. I'm ashamed to live in Iowa today.


Back of the ballot stuff is stupid, why I like voting machines. you should not encourage voters to skip some issues or just vote "straight X"
 
2010-11-03 04:16:04 PM  
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
 
2010-11-03 04:16:20 PM  
Nice link, dumbass.
 
2010-11-03 04:16:21 PM  
patrick767: Thoguh
The worst part of this was that over 100,000 voters didn't even bother to turn their ballot over to vote on the retention, and I'm 100% confident that the vast majority of them, if pressed, would have voted to retain. Every single person who wanted to recall these judges did, but far too many people who didn't take issue with the ruling chose to not voice their support.

Turn the ballot over? What are these paper ballots of which you speak?


/insert silly anal sex comment here
 
2010-11-03 04:16:56 PM  
I dont recall any churches in woodbury county making much of a yelp. I do recall alot of pissed off people that this measure wasnt voted on in the first place, so we exercised our voting power and removed some lib judges. Big deal, they passed alot of other crap we didn't like either.
 
2010-11-03 04:17:02 PM  
NewportBarGuy: Electing judges has to be the dumbest idea ever invented.
I have an idea, let's let the fans vote on who gets to be an NFL Ref. That'll be fun!


It takes a lifetime of education, schooling, training and experience to become a high court judge. Judges are, if nothing else, the modern embodiment of Plato's "Philosopher Kings".

But I find it interesting how the Supreme Court system has this rigid hierarchy of law scholars..... yet any dicksack can run for political office.

So why not have something similar for our elected officials? I don't mean anything as steep as what the judicial branch has, but maybe, at the very least, an exam or a course...or even a skill-testing questionnaire or SOME thing that would be a stopgap against outright incompetence swelling the ranks. This would prevent the Bachmans and O'Donnells and Palins and Angles from gathering any political clout purely from the power of their popularity, rather than their unproven qualifications to actually do the damn job.

Just a thought.
 
2010-11-03 04:17:04 PM  
The outcome marks the end of a showdown in the state that was funded by several million dollars from mostly out-of-state groups opposed to the same-sex marriage ruling.

I thought conservatives were pro-states rights?
 
2010-11-03 04:17:18 PM  
Stories like this are the reason I laugh whenever someone whines about how Christians are under attack. They're not. They're on the attack.

How proud Jesus must be of His flock.
 
Displayed 50 of 495 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report