Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I don't like it, myself, but what do you propose to do to fix the problem?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
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.
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.
Yet the act of giving voters the opportunity to have judges elected, or in Iowa's case holding these retention elections guarantees that at some point, if not in every point, judges are going to face this very situation.
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.
I don't like it, myself, but what do you propose to do to fix the problem?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
Why was the system changed in Iowa in 1962?
Removal of justices complicates court's calendar | desmoinesregister.com | The Des Moines RegisterBranstad said the commission, as established in a 1962 constitutional amendment, was aimed at taking the politics out of court nominations. But the partisan profile of the 15-member panel - now consisting of 12 Democrats, 1 Republican and one member who belongs to neither party - has made it a Democratic-leaning body, critics say. A Supreme Court justice is also part of the commission.
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.
I'll go further. Disinformation is a term used by despots to quell points of view they don't agree with. And, again, the fallback position is that the voter is too stupid to figure it out.
I don't like it, myself, but what do you propose to do to fix the problem?
Why was the system changed in Iowa in 1962?Removal of justices complicates court's calendar | desmoinesregister.com | The Des Moines RegisterBranstad said the commission, as established in a 1962 constitutional amendment, was aimed at taking the politics out of court nominations. But the partisan profile of the 15-member panel - now consisting of 12 Democrats, 1 Republican and one member who belongs to neither party - has made it a Democratic-leaning body, critics say. A Supreme Court justice is also part of the commission.
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.
I'll go further. Disinformation is a term used by despots to quell points of view they don't agree with. And, again, the fallback position is that the voter is too stupid to figure it out.
So Hitler was right, and the Americans were just despotic?
So Stalin was right, and the West was just being despotic?
So Baghdad Bob was right, and the US was just being despotic?
All 3 cases, we said that the other side was waging a disinformation campaign. According to your logic, we were acting despotic and trying to quell a point of view.
Take your fortune cookie slogans elsewhere. They don't work.
I'll go further. Disinformation is a term used by despots to quell points of view they don't agree with. And, again, the fallback position is that the voter is too stupid to figure it out.
So Hitler was right, and the Americans were just despotic?
So Stalin was right, and the West was just being despotic?
So Baghdad Bob was right, and the US was just being despotic?
All 3 cases, we said that the other side was waging a disinformation campaign. According to your logic, we were acting despotic and trying to quell a point of view.
Take your fortune cookie slogans elsewhere. They don't work.
First one to cry "Hitler" fails.
But those regimes collapsed or were destroyed, by people whose speech was, and still is, free.
Yes, labeling free political speech you don't agree with as disinformation is despotic.
So Hitler was right, and the Americans were just despotic?
So Stalin was right, and the West was just being despotic?
So Baghdad Bob was right, and the US was just being despotic?
All 3 cases, we said that the other side was waging a disinformation campaign. According to your logic, we were acting despotic and trying to quell a point of view.
Take your fortune cookie slogans elsewhere. They don't work.
First one to cry "Hitler" fails.
But those regimes collapsed or were destroyed, by people whose speech was, and still is, free.
Yes, labeling free political speech you don't agree with as disinformation is despotic.
Your third sentence directly contradicts your second as proven by my previous post. And your first is nothing more than a "I got nothin'".
Care to give it another go?
First one to cry "Hitler" fails.
But those regimes collapsed or were destroyed, by people whose speech was, and still is, free.
Yes, labeling free political speech you don't agree with as disinformation is despotic.
Your third sentence directly contradicts your second as proven by my previous post. And your first is nothing more than a "I got nothin'".
Care to give it another go?
Yeah, the guy in Atlanta complaining about out of state "special interests" influencing an election in Iowa.
Change the law, jerk.
Then I don't understand your question.
It's an election. They lost. Only Federal and Supreme Court judges are imposed on the system for life.
your ignorance is panoramic.
at least one state appoints judges for life.
have a nice day
