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  
•       •       •

23346 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Nov 2010 at 4:05 PM (3 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 04:17:20 PM
You keep calling people "ignorant" because they believe marriage is between one man and one woman, and this is what's going to happen.
 
2010-11-03 04:17:42 PM
But Vander Plaats and his group said they were afraid that the legal precedent set for same-sex marriage could lead to the erosion of other freedoms -- and that was why voters needed to speak up.

"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.


So you're protecting your freedom by taking away the freedoms of a minority group?? Talk about an oxymoron... it's like they think if gay marriage is legal, it makes straight marriage illegal. F'n morons.

This deserves the sick tag. I feel like I'm going to puke.

//married straight person
//but sick of gays being descriminated against
///fark H8
 
2010-11-03 04:17:44 PM
impaler: 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.


Psst. I'll tell you a secret...they are not full grown.
 
2010-11-03 04:17:45 PM
Ain't democracy a biatch?
 
2010-11-03 04:17:47 PM
The best way to protect Freedom is by denying it to folks. After all, Freedom is fungible commodity...

Good luck with that, you fair weather patriots.
 
2010-11-03 04:17:58 PM
uncletogie: 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?


Money = speech. Corporations (and unions and churches) are people.
 
2010-11-03 04:18:24 PM
Thoguh: 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.


Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees the humor in having an issue that was decided based on a perceived homosexual agenda being put on the backside of the ballot?
 
2010-11-03 04:18:30 PM
impaler: 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.


THIS.

It's America... who gives a fark who you fark or who you marry?

I'm straight and probably into weirder shiat than the average gay-dude. I just don't really get it... Seems like a BS reason to kick out a judge.
 
2010-11-03 04:19:19 PM
Coconice: 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


Yep, the downstaters votes should count more than the votes of the people who live in Cook County. I'd say a Cook County vote should count about 3/5ths of what a Down state vote should, sound about right to you?
 
2010-11-03 04:19:24 PM
Tomji: 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.

So if the police show up at the door and force you to go to the next baptist revival, you're ok with that? It's called the tyranny of the majority and it's why we live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy.
 
2010-11-03 04:19:52 PM
These are the growing pains of a country that has been moving increasingly progressive for the past 100 years. There's some reactionary blowback and a lot of yelling, but eventually those voices get smaller and smaller, until they are relegated to the dustbin of history.
 
2010-11-03 04:19:59 PM
Too bad I'm not authorized to work in any other countries.

I guess there's always the People's Republic of Vermont.
 
2010-11-03 04:20:01 PM
Blasphemous Knave: I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

THIS
 
2010-11-03 04:20:02 PM
Let's put all our rights up for approval by the majority of super-fanatical voters motivated by ignorance and fear. This silly letting people who know about the law decide what laws are thing has gone on long enough.
 
2010-11-03 04:20:17 PM
Whine about why/who/how these judges got ousted, but it's the American voting system at work here. When elected individuals decide their way is best however adamantly the people protest against it, you better believe when they get a chance, the people will make their voices heard.

/I have nothing against gay marriage; think it should be legal
//I do believe the majority shall rule
 
2010-11-03 04:20:31 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....


I always vote No on those questions. Doesn't matter who the judge is or what their track record is. I'm just opposed to someone staying in office forever.
 
2010-11-03 04:21:28 PM
Ontos: I'm straight and probably into weirder shiat than the average gay-dude.

Yeah: we straight people can do everything gay can do, plus we can do penis-in-the-vagina sex and they can't.
 
2010-11-03 04:21:35 PM
This and Prop 19's defeat in CA were the most disapointing results of the election.

Coconice: 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?

No. This country isn't run by majority rule, because frankly majority rule is a stupid idea. 50.1% of the country shouldn't be allowed to oppress the other 49.9%. Having all three branches of government subject to the whims of the electorate is a bad idea. Let the governor appoint the judges, and let the legislature have the power to impeach them.
 
2010-11-03 04:21:36 PM
The US has a limited supply of rights. That is why driving is a privilege. We didn't want to waste one a right on it. Gays marrying just burns up an entire right on what, up to 10% of the population? I'd rather use that right for something we can all enjoy. Like trans-fats in my french fries.
 
2010-11-03 04:21:45 PM
Oh, give me a break, you whiners. Judges shouldn't have life terms any more than congressman, and they are part of our legal process. I'm sure each of you would defend to the death a judge who was an activist contrary to your agendas.
 
2010-11-03 04:22:45 PM
Barakku: 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.

But God needs their help to keep down the gays that He accidentally created.
 
2010-11-03 04:23:16 PM
Makes me think of this clip
Colbert's Anti-gay-marriage ad (new window)
 
2010-11-03 04:23:28 PM
Back to the gay thing, though, I can understand a church refusing to acknowledge same sex marriage. I can in no way understand the problem with civil unions.

I always thought gay people had it too easy. They can just break up and walk away.

Do you have any idea how much money it would cost me to walk away?
 
2010-11-03 04:23:28 PM
As an Iowa resident, I'm ashamed at this whole thing. I was really proud to say that I live in a state that recognized equal protection under the law.

I feel really bad for gay people. Sorry, guys. We're not all ignorant hicks.
 
2010-11-03 04:23:53 PM
Fark, Iowa...what the hell is wrong with you?

Standard Deviant: Oh, give me a break, you whiners. Judges shouldn't have life terms any more than congressman, and they are part of our legal process. I'm sure each of you would defend to the death a judge who was an activist contrary to your agendas.

I see your point, but judicial experience is critical in courts of last resort, for so many reasons. Cycling out judges in these courts isn't generally a good idea.
 
2010-11-03 04:23:58 PM
listicles.thelmagazine.com
 
2010-11-03 04:24:03 PM
uncletogie: I came in to ask the same question. Why is this not illegal? Any Fark lawyers care to comment?

1st Amendment, by restricting "out of area" political funds you are limiting peoples right to free speech. It sucks but it's Constitutional
 
2010-11-03 04:24:25 PM
Some Texan: Whine about why/who/how these judges got ousted, but it's the American voting system at work here. When elected individuals decide their way is best however adamantly the people protest against it, you better believe when they get a chance, the people will make their voices heard.

/I have nothing against gay marriage; think it should be legal
//I do believe the majority shall rule


Spoken like a true member of the majority. For now.
 
2010-11-03 04:24:49 PM
Bladel: 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.


These churches and religious groups should immediately lose their tax exempt status
 
2010-11-03 04:25:02 PM
NewportBarGuy: Electing judges has to be the dumbest idea ever invented.

Just like electing Senators, amirite?

/trollin'
 
2010-11-03 04:25:06 PM
Judicial activism exists to protect the minority from the majority. It is a vital part of the system. If the majority is able to intimidate judges on issues then you have opened the door for a tyranny of the majority.
 
2010-11-03 04:25:53 PM
impaler: 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.


They're not really adults, they're "religious conservatives." Which means they should get to do whatever their "faith" leads them to do no matter who it hurts, while all the rest of us should be busy obeying their laws and showing "personal responsibility" and all that. They are like spoiled, learning-disabled toddlers who have never been taught to respect others- as far as they're concerned, the rest of the world is only here to do their bidding and wipe their asses for them.
 
2010-11-03 04:26:04 PM
Since I just spent all morning fighting with the rest of Totalfark about how evil and wrong I think republicans are for this sort of shiat, this is just another confirmation that there's still a reason to fight.
 
2010-11-03 04:26:51 PM
So let me get this straight, Iowa For Freedom is an activist group protesting activist judges who are taking away their freedom by granting gays the freedom to marry.

Iowa For Freedom claims that only the legislature has the right to grant freedom, the judges don't have the freedom to grant freedom, and are taking away the people's freedom by expanding the freedom to marry.

Therefore, Iowa For Freedom's activists campaign to remove the activist judges and plan to take away homosexual's freedom to marry.

/is that right?
 
2010-11-03 04:27:00 PM
impaler: 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.


If you ask them, they will explain that they don't personally care what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom, they're just sick and tired of these people forcing the issue onto them and rubbing their faces in it.

That's why they have to donate all this money to a campaign in a state 1,000 miles away that they never plan to visit; if they don't, gays will keep interfering with the privacy of straights to just live their life.
 
2010-11-03 04:27:13 PM
FTFA: "Iowa law wisely allows for a check and balance of the Supreme Court through a retention vote by you, the citizens. In April of 2009, we all witnessed blatant judicial activism by the Iowa Supreme Court," the group's website said, referring to the decision by the court that Iowa's law restricting marriage to one man and one woman violated the state's constitution.

ah yes, that judicial activism thing, when judges make rulings you don't like!
 
2010-11-03 04:27:17 PM
Talondel: This and Prop 19's defeat in CA were the most disapointing results of the election.

It was defeated because it was badly written, a lot of the potheads I know opposed it because it was a POS law.
 
2010-11-03 04:27:51 PM
Americans are retarded. And I have been one all my life.
 
2010-11-03 04:27:57 PM
I don't understand the headline (how are the three judges going to take the country back by returning to private practice?), but I agree with the "sad" tag.
 
2010-11-03 04:28:05 PM
STOP BEING ASSHOLES
 
2010-11-03 04:29:28 PM
Azlefty: Talondel: This and Prop 19's defeat in CA were the most disapointing results of the election.

It was defeated because it was badly written, a lot of the potheads I know opposed it because it was a POS law.


I would go with Feingold's defeat in Wisconsin, but hey, to each their own.
 
2010-11-03 04:29:34 PM
Talondel: This and Prop 19's defeat in CA were the most disapointing results of the election.

Coconice: 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?

No. This country isn't run by majority rule, because frankly majority rule is a stupid idea. 50.1% of the country shouldn't be allowed to oppress the other 49.9%. Having all three branches of government subject to the whims of the electorate is a bad idea. Let the governor appoint the judges, and let the legislature have the power to impeach them.


This corrects nothing.

The governeror and the legislature are also elected by 50.1%. Then, the decisions and appointments they make oppress the other 49.9%

I see no improvement.

I will agree that popular vote is an insane way to do things. If leaders were always wise and benevolent, I'd happily give up the right to periodically choose things.
 
2010-11-03 04:29:43 PM
I'm Yukon Cornelius: FTFA: "Iowa law wisely allows for a check and balance of the Supreme Court through a retention vote by you, the citizens. In April of 2009, we all witnessed blatant judicial activism by the Iowa Supreme Court," the group's website said, referring to the decision by the court that Iowa's law restricting marriage to one man and one woman violated the state's constitution.

ah yes, that judicial activism thing, when judges make rulings you don't like!


Indeed....I fail to see how ruling that a law violates the Iowa Constitution constitutes 'activism'....guess Iowa joined the United States of Stupidia.
 
2010-11-03 04:30:56 PM
http://img.skitch.com/20100104-e9i8jq7sw55kw1d7ak3ss3diip.jpg
 
2010-11-03 04:31:04 PM
dannymo24: 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.

These churches and religious groups should immediately lose their tax exempt status


Yep it's completely crazy. Even my extra conservative friends thought it was lunacy that church X from down south was pouring millions upon millions in a smear the quears campaign for activist judges. It was a right wing troll come true.
 
2010-11-03 04:31:31 PM
Dammit...

img.skitch.com
 
2010-11-03 04:31:40 PM
highrye: Azlefty: Talondel: This and Prop 19's defeat in CA were the most disappointing results of the election.

It was defeated because it was badly written, a lot of the potheads I know opposed it because it was a POS law.

I would go with Feingold's defeat in Wisconsin, but hey, to each their own.


I also would go with Feingold's defeat as the most disappointing result.
 
2010-11-03 04:32:20 PM
ghare: uncletogie: 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?

Money = speech. Corporations (and unions and churches) are people.


Thanks for the court ruling that's pissed me off more times than I can count.

Can a corporation go to jail? No? NOT A PERSON, damnit.
 
2010-11-03 04:32:42 PM
Bladel:
Oh, and someone should tell these folks that new judges doesn't mean you get new laws....


It might not, but it sends the message that what the previous judges did didn't mesh well with the voters.

--
I keep trying to figure out why everyone seems to hate the fact that when you have a democracy, majority wins. Isn't the whole point to put the issues to the people and find out what a majority of them think?

Why does everyone love democracy until they're on the losing side and cry that it should be illegal vote people out for not following the wishes of the majority.

--
I don't really give a crap about the issue at hand, but obviously the voters spoke loudly. Is it always "right", of course not. But if you don't like the fact that the voters occasionally get a say, move somewhere where you don't even get the right to vote.
 
2010-11-03 04:33:06 PM
Philip Francis Queeg: Coconice: 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

Yep, the downstaters votes should count more than the votes of the people who live in Cook County. I'd say a Cook County vote should count about 3/5ths of what a Down state vote should, sound about right to you?


Not sure if serious.

I do not like our set up in Illinois, though. What is good for Cook County is not usually the same as what is good for the rest of this land mass.

So, Cook County can select a governor that rest of the state would rather not have.

So, Cook County can cast electoral votes on a president that the rest of the state would rather not have.

It makes voting feel quite useless, and those of us out here growing your food get very little representation.
 
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 »






Report