Iowa Judges Sacked Over Gay Marriage Ruling

| 11/ 3/10 03:22 AM | AP

DES MOINES, Iowa — Iowa voters have voted to remove three state Supreme Court justices, siding with conservatives angered by a ruling that allowed gay marriage.

The vote Tuesday was the first time Iowa voters have removed a Supreme Court justice since the current system began in 1962.

The three who weren't retained were Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices David Baker and Michael Streit. They were the only justices up for retention this year.

They were on the court of seven justices who unanimously decided last year that an Iowa law restricting marriage to one man and one woman violated the state's constitution.

Gay marriage opponents spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the campaign. A group of former governors, lawyers and judges said the justices' removal would threaten Iowa's independent judiciary.

See original article at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/iowa-judges-gay-marriage_n_778100.html

Just another example of the homophobia that reigns in America.

Another example of why judges need to be appointed for life or at least very long nonrepeating terms.

I agree.

One of the key roles of the court is to protect the minority from the majority. If the court can be brought to heel by the majority, it fails in that critical purpose.

Another example of why judges need to be appointed for life or at least very long nonrepeating terms.

That's kind of scary. How would you feel if the court had decided to uphold the law? Would you still support unlimited terms with no accountability for the members of the court?

That's kind of scary. How would you feel if the court had decided to uphold the law? Would you still support unlimited terms with no accountability for the members of the court?

Of course. Do you really want tyranny of the majority in this country? Go read some history of Athens to learn what happens when you have no checks on the will of the majority.

You use the word accountability, but really it is a thinly veiled threat that the majority will remove you if you do your job and make an unpopular ruling.

The Supreme Court has decided any number of things incorrectly in my opinion. I've never thought that that should give me a reason to recall them.

I mistakenly posted about this in the Tuesday Election thread, so pardon me.

The NY Times thinks this vote may make judges shy on future rulings:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/us/politics/04judges.html?hp

Of course. Do you really want tyranny of the majority in this country? Go read some history of Athens to learn what happens when you have no checks on the will of the majority.

You use the word accountability, but really it is a thinly veiled threat that the majority will remove you if you do your job and make an unpopular ruling.

The Supreme Court has decided any number of things incorrectly in my opinion. I've never thought that that should give me a reason to recall them.

Isn't the whole idea behind representative government that elected officials represent the will of the people who elect them?

As a voter, I can tell you that I never make electoral decisions based upon "thinly veiled threats" or thinly analyzed ideas. I tend to vote my own values- less government is better and People can make better decisions for themselves than government can make for them.

I think that statements like the one you made here give the electorate far too little credit as a group. Legislation and court cases are never going to bring the gay community acceptance by the political middle. One on one exposure to real people in real situations is.

I live in middle America. It's a funny place where people are far more accepting of other people than they are of less personalized political and/or marketing campaigns.

Middle America is where these battles for recognition and acceptance need to be fought.

Well, Conway, may I assume that you are out of the closet in your middle American town? Without the protection of the law, many would be afraid to come out. So if they don't, middle America never gets to meet them.

Isn't the whole idea behind representative government that elected officials represent the will of the people who elect them?

So are you saying that if the will of the people is that blacks ride in the back of the bus, gays are to be incarcerated and liquor should be prohibited - the elected judges should go along with that?

If so, I'm glad I don't live in your utopia.

The whole concept of the bill of rights is that the will of the majority is not supreme. FSM help us if it ever becomes supreme.