Special Interests oust 3 Iowa supreme court judges

[RadiomanATL]

Iowa voters oust justices who made same-sex marriage legal - CNN.com

Voters in Iowa chose to remove three high court justices who helped make Iowa the first Midwestern state to permit same-sex marriage.

The vote marks the first time a member of the Iowa Supreme Court has been rejected by the voters under the current system that began in 1962.

Under the voting system in Iowa, each of the three justices up for retention -- Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, David Baker and Michael Streit -- needed simply to get more "yes" votes than "no" votes in the election to be elected for another eight-year term. They faced no opponents. None of the judges raised money for the campaign.

The group wrote on its site that a "special interest group" was "pouring money" into the race, when in the past three decades all of Iowa's judicial campaigns had "combined spending of $0."

And while the justices did not actively campaign to keep their seats, Ternus did give a speech last month that warned against the power of special interest groups -- like the groups that campaigned against the justices. "[They want] our judges to be servants of this group's ideology, rather than servants of the law." Ternus said, according to the Des Moines Register. "They simply refuse to accept that an impartial, legally sound and fair reading of the law can lead to an unpopular decision."

 

[Revere]

Judges who run for re-election unopposed (most do) and still can't win are a special kind of fucked up.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Judges who run for re-election unopposed (most do) and still can't win are a special kind of fucked up.

Did you mean to display your ignorance on the retention and selection process of the Iowa Supreme Court justices? Or was that an accident?

Also, thanks for letting everyone know that you didn't read the article

Iowa Supreme Court justices are appointed by the governor from a list of nominees chosen by a nominating commission, according to the court's website, and then face retention votes every eight years.

IOW: They always run unopposed. And it's not an election. It's a retention.

 

[Revere]

It's an election. They lost. Only Federal and Supreme Court judges are imposed on the system for life.

 

[RadiomanATL]

It's not an election. It's a retention.

Big difference. No one else is allowed to run.

 

[Revere]

It's also telling that the article would not call out the groups by name.

 

[topspin]

Lesson to liberals and progressives, like the billionaires can't buy elections limosine liberals can't set your agenda.

 

[RadiomanATL]

It's also telling that the article would not call out the groups by name.

The move was spearheaded primarily by Bob Vander Plaats, a Republican Sioux City attorney who lost the nomination for governor of the state and created the group Iowa For Freedom.

"If we allow political money to buy judicial retention elections, the quality of judiciary will be harmed and the perception of the judiciary will be diminished," the Iowa group Fair Courts For Us said on its website.

The group wrote on its site that a "special interest group" was "pouring money" into the race, when in the past three decades all of Iowa's judicial campaigns had "combined spending of $0."

So when Vander Plaats' group told voters it was "time to take a stand against the radical judicial activism of the Iowa Supreme Court," the Fair Courts for Us group did what it could to help.

Anything else?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Lesson to liberals and progressives, like the billionaires can't buy elections limosine liberals can't set your agenda.

Thats pretty much what happened here. Although I doubt the sore loser was a billionaire.

 

[Revere]

Same old, same old, blame the voters horse shit.

 

[Mad Scientist]

It's an election. They lost. Only Federal and Supreme Court judges are imposed on the system for life.

I think what RadioMonkeyATL wants to say is: "I blame the 'special interests boogeyman' if the vote doesn't go my way".

 

[RadiomanATL]

It's an election. They lost. Only Federal and Supreme Court judges are imposed on the system for life.

I think what RadioMonkeyATL wants to say is: "I blame the 'special interests boogeyman' if the vote doesn't go my way".

Combined spending from 1962 to 2010 on the retention vote: $0

When special interests get involved, for the first time ever, Iowa supreme court justices are not retained.

And you want to say it wasn't special interest money....go sell that one somewhere else...

 

[Revere]

It's an election. They lost. Only Federal and Supreme Court judges are imposed on the system for life.

I think what RadioMonkeyATL wants to say is: "I blame the 'special interests boogeyman' if the vote doesn't go my way".

Combined spending from 1962 to 2010 on the retention vote: $0

When special interests get involved, for the first time ever, Iowa supreme court justices are not retained.

And you want to say it wasn't special interest money....go sell that one somewhere else...

PACs can't hold a gun to people's head and make them vote.

At least grow a set and blame the people who actually voted.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I think what RadioMonkeyATL wants to say is: "I blame the 'special interests boogeyman' if the vote doesn't go my way".

Combined spending from 1962 to 2010 on the retention vote: $0

When special interests get involved, for the first time ever, Iowa supreme court justices are not retained.

And you want to say it wasn't special interest money....go sell that one somewhere else...

PACs can't hold a gun to people's head and make them vote.

At least grow a set and blame the people who actually voted.

PAC's can influence a vote through disinformation and campaigning. Which they did here.

So you don't have a problem with special interest money influencing a vote. Good to know

 

[JWBooth]

Iowa voters oust justices who made same-sex marriage legal - CNN.com

Voters in Iowa chose to remove three high court justices who helped make Iowa the first Midwestern state to permit same-sex marriage.

The vote marks the first time a member of the Iowa Supreme Court has been rejected by the voters under the current system that began in 1962.

Under the voting system in Iowa, each of the three justices up for retention -- Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, David Baker and Michael Streit -- needed simply to get more "yes" votes than "no" votes in the election to be elected for another eight-year term. They faced no opponents. None of the judges raised money for the campaign.

The group wrote on its site that a "special interest group" was "pouring money" into the race, when in the past three decades all of Iowa's judicial campaigns had "combined spending of $0."

And while the justices did not actively campaign to keep their seats, Ternus did give a speech last month that warned against the power of special interest groups -- like the groups that campaigned against the justices. "[They want] our judges to be servants of this group's ideology, rather than servants of the law." Ternus said, according to the Des Moines Register. "They simply refuse to accept that an impartial, legally sound and fair reading of the law can lead to an unpopular decision."

Money can only do so much. Folks actually have to mark a ballot, and when they are reminded of a decision that goes against their
basic beliefs it is not surprising that they voted this way. Say an equal amount of money had been spent defending these justices and their decisions, do you think the outcome would be any different? Iowa ain't exactly North Hollywood.

 

[Revere]

Combined spending from 1962 to 2010 on the retention vote: $0

When special interests get involved, for the first time ever, Iowa supreme court justices are not retained.

And you want to say it wasn't special interest money....go sell that one somewhere else...

PACs can't hold a gun to people's head and make them vote.

At least grow a set and blame the people who actually voted.

PAC's can influence a vote through disinformation and campaigning. Which they did here.

So you don't have a problem with special interest money influencing a vote. Good to know

Disinformation is a term used by despots to quell free speech.

 

[Ravi]

Combined spending from 1962 to 2010 on the retention vote: $0

When special interests get involved, for the first time ever, Iowa supreme court justices are not retained.

And you want to say it wasn't special interest money....go sell that one somewhere else...

PACs can't hold a gun to people's head and make them vote.

At least grow a set and blame the people who actually voted.

PAC's can influence a vote through disinformation and campaigning. Which they did here.

So you don't have a problem with special interest money influencing a vote. Good to know

I don't like it, myself, but what do you propose to do to fix the problem?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Iowa voters oust justices who made same-sex marriage legal - CNN.com

Voters in Iowa chose to remove three high court justices who helped make Iowa the first Midwestern state to permit same-sex marriage.

The vote marks the first time a member of the Iowa Supreme Court has been rejected by the voters under the current system that began in 1962.

Under the voting system in Iowa, each of the three justices up for retention -- Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, David Baker and Michael Streit -- needed simply to get more "yes" votes than "no" votes in the election to be elected for another eight-year term. They faced no opponents. None of the judges raised money for the campaign.

And while the justices did not actively campaign to keep their seats, Ternus did give a speech last month that warned against the power of special interest groups -- like the groups that campaigned against the justices. "[They want] our judges to be servants of this group's ideology, rather than servants of the law." Ternus said, according to the Des Moines Register. "They simply refuse to accept that an impartial, legally sound and fair reading of the law can lead to an unpopular decision."

Money can only do so much. Folks actually have to mark a ballot, and when they are reminded of a decision that goes against their
basic beliefs it is not surprising that they voted this way. Say an equal amount of money had been spent defending these justices and their decisions, do you think the outcome would be any different? Iowa ain't exactly North Hollywood.

I think special interest with an axe to grind is trying to unduly influence the judiciary.

I don't have a problem so much with special interest in the executive and legislative branches, but the judiciary needs to be able to make a decision without concern for what the voters may think. Their rulings need to be based strictly on the letter of the law and not the popularity of the law.

Otherwise, all you get is an extension of the legislative. Pointless. And removes a large portion of the checks and balances that exist for a reason.

 

[topspin]

gay rights is special interest, democrats just don't realize that voters care more about jobs than thier gay friend being allowed to marry.

 

[RadiomanATL]

PACs can't hold a gun to people's head and make them vote.

At least grow a set and blame the people who actually voted.

PAC's can influence a vote through disinformation and campaigning. Which they did here.

So you don't have a problem with special interest money influencing a vote. Good to know

Disinformation is a term used by despots to quell free speech.

Political philosophies and thoughts don't fit inside a fortune cookie.

I can think of three examples that put lie to your simple minded sentence. You might want to try again.