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.

(WCF Courier)   In a move that is "not meant to be punitive," Iowa house Republicans want to pass a law lowering the salaries of the 4 justices who struck down the ban same-sex marriages to $25,000/year   (wcfcourier.com) divider line 170
    More: Asinine, Iowa House, same-sex marriages, Iowa, Iowa Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, salary, justices, constitutional amendments  
•       •       •

4341 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2013 at 3:22 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



170 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-23 03:08:48 PM  
In a pig's eye.
 
2013-04-23 03:14:50 PM  
republicans are all assholes. they didn't all used to be. but if you're a republican in 2013, you are, by definition, an asshole.
 
2013-04-23 03:15:23 PM  
In the meantime, Hogg suggested that a plan to pay justices differently based on their role in one case would be unlikely to withstand a court challenge.

"We'll cross that bridge when we come to it," Alons said.


Translation: "We know it's farking stupid and will never hold up, but we'll piss and moan and waste taxpayer money until that day comes."

Farking morons!
 
2013-04-23 03:19:05 PM  

scottydoesntknow: In the meantime, Hogg suggested that a plan to pay justices differently based on their role in one case would be unlikely to withstand a court challenge.

"We'll cross that bridge when we come to it," Alons said.

Translation: "We know it's farking stupid and will never hold up, but we'll piss and moan and waste taxpayer money until that day comes."

Farking morons!


"small-government" republicans all across the country are doing shiat like this - passing bills that are blatantly unconstitutional. it's a waste of time and taxpayer money. two things they couldn't give a fark about.
 
2013-04-23 03:19:33 PM  
FTA:  would lower the salaries of the four justices on the seven-member court who were part of the unanimous Varnum v. Brein decision

Am I missing something?  How could four of seven be part of a unanimous decision?
 
2013-04-23 03:24:47 PM  
"The justices 'trashed the separation of powers' with their unanimous Varnum v. Brein decision and implementation of same-sex marriage without a change in state law banning any marriages expect between one man and one woman, added Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull."

Riiiiiigggggghhhhhttttt.
 
2013-04-23 03:24:51 PM  

FlashHarry: scottydoesntknow: In the meantime, Hogg suggested that a plan to pay justices differently based on their role in one case would be unlikely to withstand a court challenge.

"We'll cross that bridge when we come to it," Alons said.

Translation: "We know it's farking stupid and will never hold up, but we'll piss and moan and waste taxpayer money until that day comes."

Farking morons!

"small-government" republicans all across the country are doing shiat like this - passing bills that are blatantly unconstitutional. it's a waste of time and taxpayer money. two things they couldn't give a fark about.


I seriously do not understand the 'why' of it? Pandering to the base only explains so much.
 
2013-04-23 03:24:51 PM  

Solid State Vittles: FTA:  would lower the salaries of the four justices on the seven-member court who were part of the unanimous Varnum v. Brein decision

Am I missing something?  How could four of seven be part of a unanimous decision?


i think the other three may have been recalled. wingnuts ran a big recall campaign after iowa allowed boys to kiss boys.
 
2013-04-23 03:25:24 PM  

Solid State Vittles: FTA:  would lower the salaries of the four justices on the seven-member court who were part of the unanimous Varnum v. Brein decision

Am I missing something?  How could four of seven be part of a unanimous decision?


The other three were voted out of their seats in 2010. Not positive on the year, but positive that it happened.
 
2013-04-23 03:25:29 PM  
F*cking crybabies.
 
2013-04-23 03:26:33 PM  

FlashHarry: scottydoesntknow: In the meantime, Hogg suggested that a plan to pay justices differently based on their role in one case would be unlikely to withstand a court challenge.

"We'll cross that bridge when we come to it," Alons said.

Translation: "We know it's farking stupid and will never hold up, but we'll piss and moan and waste taxpayer money until that day comes."

Farking morons!

"small-government" republicans all across the country are doing shiat like this - passing bills that are blatantly unconstitutional. it's a waste of time and taxpayer money. two things they couldn't give a fark about.



Hooray for fiscal responsibility!
 
2013-04-23 03:26:53 PM  

Solid State Vittles: FTA:  would lower the salaries of the four justices on the seven-member court who were part of the unanimous Varnum v. Brein decision

Am I missing something?  How could four of seven be part of a unanimous decision?


I didn't RTFA, but my guess is the court is made up of 7 justices, but only a panel of 4 heard the case.
 
2013-04-23 03:27:09 PM  
What a bunch of dicks.
 
2013-04-23 03:27:15 PM  
I'm having trouble here, could someone help me out? The headline, as written, doesn't make any sense. Has anyone else noticed?
 
2013-04-23 03:27:51 PM  
It's not meant to be punitive, Alons and Shaw said April 23.

"We're just holding them responsible for their decision, for going beyond their bounds," Shaw said


I thought politicians were supposed to be skilled with words.
 
2013-04-23 03:28:05 PM  

MFAWG: I seriously do not understand the 'why' of it? Pandering to the base only explains so much.


Honestly at this point I think it's just spite.  They are just so mad at poors, gays, libs, and all those "others" out there who aren't like them.
 
2013-04-23 03:28:14 PM  
DRTFA but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that would be illegal.  I have no education in law, but I feel like it's a safe bet to say that.
 
2013-04-23 03:29:20 PM  
It's not meant to be punitive, Alons and Shaw said April 23.

"We're just holding them responsible for their decision, for going beyond their bounds," Shaw said

Definition of PUNITIVE

: inflicting, involving, or aiming at punishment
- pu·ni·tive·ly adverb
- pu·ni·tive·ness noun

MFAWG: I seriously do not understand the 'why' of it? Pandering to the base only explains so much.


Temper tantrum.
 
2013-04-23 03:29:47 PM  
Everyone involved gets paid too much anyways....
 
2013-04-23 03:29:50 PM  

kimwim: I'm having trouble here, could someone help me out? The headline, as written, doesn't make any sense. Has anyone else noticed?


What about it is hard to understand?  Republicans are being dicks (and doing so in a manner that is totally unconstitutional and illegal).  Pretty much par for the course.
 
2013-04-23 03:30:23 PM  

MFAWG: FlashHarry: scottydoesntknow: In the meantime, Hogg suggested that a plan to pay justices differently based on their role in one case would be unlikely to withstand a court challenge.

"We'll cross that bridge when we come to it," Alons said.

Translation: "We know it's farking stupid and will never hold up, but we'll piss and moan and waste taxpayer money until that day comes."

Farking morons!

"small-government" republicans all across the country are doing shiat like this - passing bills that are blatantly unconstitutional. it's a waste of time and taxpayer money. two things they couldn't give a fark about.

I seriously do not understand the 'why' of it? Pandering to the base only explains so much.


Those lawmakers themselves are part of the base to which they themselves are pandering.
 
2013-04-23 03:30:40 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: MFAWG: I seriously do not understand the 'why' of it? Pandering to the base only explains so much.

Honestly at this point I think it's just spite.  They are just so mad at poors, gays, libs, and all those "others" out there who aren't like them.


Yeah, these local nutters aren't panderers. They're true believers, elected by even truer moron believers.
 
2013-04-23 03:30:44 PM  

Reverend J: DRTFA but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that would be illegal.  I have no education in law, but I feel like it's a safe bet to say that.


I bet you dollars to donuts at least four sitting members of SCOTUS would sign onto a decision saying it is constitutional. I'm not sure if you'd get five.
 
2013-04-23 03:30:54 PM  

kimwim: I'm having trouble here, could someone help me out? The headline, as written, doesn't make any sense. Has anyone else noticed?


It doesn't make sense, but that's because what the Iowa Republicans are doing doesn't make any sense. From TFA:

Their amendment to Senate File 442, the judicial branch budget bill, would lower the salaries of the four justices on the seven-member court who were part of the unanimous Varnum v. Brein decision to $25,000
 
2013-04-23 03:31:42 PM  

Serious Black: I bet you dollars to donuts at least four sitting members of SCOTUS would sign onto a decision saying it is constitutional. I'm not sure if you'd get five.


Then we should lower their salaries to $25,000 a year!
 
2013-04-23 03:32:37 PM  
How would they do it?  Sometimes you can scrape by if you use a phrasing like "judges who have served between 2 and 10 years", but it sounds like these guys are going for a straight-up bill of attainder.
 
2013-04-23 03:32:44 PM  
Justices must be made aware that they are first and foremost accountable to the legislature, and not to the Constitution.
 
2013-04-23 03:32:50 PM  
Bigots... They get so mad when you tell them they don't get to act on their bigotry.
 
2013-04-23 03:33:06 PM  

Solid State Vittles: FTA:  would lower the salaries of the four justices on the seven-member court who were part of the unanimous Varnum v. Brein decision

Am I missing something?  How could four of seven be part of a unanimous decision?


The remaining three (Marsha Ternus, David Baker, and Michael Streit) were voted out in their retention elections in the 2010 cycle. The one up in 2012 (David Wiggins) got retained 56%-44%.
 
2013-04-23 03:33:34 PM  

FlashHarry: republicans are all assholes. they didn't all used to be. but if you're a republican in 2013, you are, by definition, an asshole.


What if I'm still a Republican but hoping to stay in the party and try to steer the party back to some semblance of sanity?

/seriously thinking of switching soon...really hate what is happening.
 
2013-04-23 03:35:14 PM  
Something tells me that if it was unanimous, the decision might not have actually been so ridiculous after all.  Your objection to it, on the other hand...
 
2013-04-23 03:35:51 PM  
c'mon Iowa, you're starting to catch up to Kansas derp levels.

/Kansan
 
2013-04-23 03:36:14 PM  

Speaking of the effects of the gay marriage ruling in Iowa, I give you the first four results of a GIS for "fabulous Iowa"



farm2.staticflickr.com

winddeli.info

dev.virtualearth.net
external.ak.fbcdn.net
It gets more fabulous from there.

Thanks, Gay Agenda.
 
2013-04-23 03:36:16 PM  
US Constitution, Article III, Section 1:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
 
2013-04-23 03:36:21 PM  
I doubt the amendment would garner greater than 25% in the vote but I do love the amount they chose.  It rings of "If the court choses to legislate from the bench they should be paid as legislators"
 
2013-04-23 03:36:26 PM  
$25k in Iowa, that is a virtual millionaire
 
2013-04-23 03:36:42 PM  

MFAWG: I seriously do not understand the 'why' of it? Pandering to the base only explains so much.


It dovetails neatly into the GOP narrative that gov. is broken and does not work.  Later, after they've wasted millions of dollars defending blatantly unconstitutional laws, they can show that the gov is spending too much money on things that don't benefit taxpayers and therefore we need tax cuts and more privatization.
 
2013-04-23 03:37:42 PM  

LantisEscudo: Solid State Vittles: FTA:  would lower the salaries of the four justices on the seven-member court who were part of the unanimous Varnum v. Brein decision

Am I missing something?  How could four of seven be part of a unanimous decision?

The remaining three (Marsha Ternus, David Baker, and Michael Streit) were voted out in their retention elections in the 2010 cycle. The one up in 2012 (David Wiggins) got retained 56%-44%.


Ah, thanks to all of you that responded.
 
2013-04-23 03:38:18 PM  

Target Builder: US Constitution, Article III, Section 1:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.


these are state judges
 
2013-04-23 03:39:08 PM  

ArkPanda: How would they do it?  Sometimes you can scrape by if you use a phrasing like "judges who have served between 2 and 10 years", but it sounds like these guys are going for a straight-up bill of attainder.


Sure, they could say that any judge who have served on the bench for more than two years has their salary reduced, but when you have comments like Dwayne Alons's in the public record, it's clear what the motivation for the bill is anyway. Phrasing it differently doesn't change the fact that it's a bill of attainder.
 
2013-04-23 03:39:34 PM  
Do Iowa House Republicans not know what words mean?
 
2013-04-23 03:41:26 PM  

odinsposse: Their amendment to Senate File 442, the judicial branch budget bill, would lower the salaries of the four justices on the seven-member court who were part of the unanimous Varnum v. Brein decision to $25,000


If it were unanimous, then there were 7 justices who voted for it? Then they'd have to lower all 7 justice's salaries?  But they're lowering only 4? The situation still doesn't make any sense!!
 
2013-04-23 03:42:05 PM  

Dog Welder: What if I'm still a Republican but hoping to stay in the party and try to steer the party back to some semblance of sanity?

/seriously thinking of switching soon...really hate what is happening.


i should have probably specified "republican politician."

but to your question - sadly, you're a rarity.

i have voted republican on several occasions in the past. i cannot think of a single issue with which the GOP and i are in agreement. but it's so much more than that. they aren't just wrong on virtually every issue, they're also reprehensible people who can be counted on to put their party ahead of the country's interests every single time. they are vindictive, cruel, angry, greedy, shrill, arrogant, and proudly and willfully ignorant. they are a disgrace to their once-proud party's roots.
 
2013-04-23 03:42:08 PM  
Butthurt and ignorant is no way to go through life, yet somehow conservatives manage it.
 
2013-04-23 03:42:41 PM  

Biological Ali: Do Iowa House Republicans not know what words mean?


they're republicans. reading is for f@ggots.
 
2013-04-23 03:43:09 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: Target Builder: US Constitution, Article III, Section 1:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

these are state judges


You are correct. I highly doubt that the Iowa constitution lacks a similar phrase. Even if it doesn't prevent the legislature from lowering their pay, the US Constitution bans states from instituting bills of attainder in Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall...pass any Bill of Attainder."
 
2013-04-23 03:44:11 PM  

FlashHarry: republicans are all assholes. they didn't all used to be. but if you're a republican in 2013, you are, by definition, an asshole.


I'm a registered Republican and I am NOT an asshole.

/registered 25 years ago... can't be bothered to change it
 
2013-04-23 03:44:31 PM  

kimwim: odinsposse: Their amendment to Senate File 442, the judicial branch budget bill, would lower the salaries of the four justices on the seven-member court who were part of the unanimous Varnum v. Brein decision to $25,000

If it were unanimous, then there were 7 justices who voted for it? Then they'd have to lower all 7 justice's salaries?  But they're lowering only 4? The situation still doesn't make any sense!!


The other three were recalled in 2010. They were targeted specifically for their signing onto the opinion in Varnum v. Brein.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/us/politics/04judges.html
 
2013-04-23 03:45:59 PM  

Target Builder: US Constitution, Article III, Section 1:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.


Don't mess with the derpers. They'll freeze current USSCT salaries in place, and then get the Fed to triple the money supply, thus creatng 300% inflation.
 
2013-04-23 03:46:48 PM  
The justices "trashed the separation of powers" with their unanimous Varnum v. Brein decision and implementation of same-sex marriage

Why Conservatives Are Baffled By The Judicial Branch

(1) They are big believers in the tyranny of the majority, everything will work out fine as long as you're white, male, straight, and are a follower of Supply Side Jesus.

(2) The judicial branch's very job is to overturn the legislative branch's unconstitutional laws which tend to be those very majority-tyrannies.

To them it represents a dichotomy. They are passionate supporters of what the rules their state/federal constitution put forth on the balance of powers, but those rules allow for women to vote despite how many laws they make saying otherwise? Something just doesn't add up there!
 
Displayed 50 of 170 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report