This caught my eye from CNN:
On Election Day in Iowa, Des Moines Register columnist Rekha Basu went to the courthouse where the momentous decision came down.No, no, no, no, no.
"What I'd gone looking for was reassurance -- that, come today, the court could continue its business without worrying about voter backlashes; that justices who have done their jobs wouldn't lose them for upholding the constitution," Basu wrote.
What Rekha Basu did was drive to a government building and prayed.
Because government is Rekha Basu's religion!
It is her faith!
Now it's all shattered!
Boo hooo hooooooo hooooooooooo!
Somebody call a Waaaaaaamulance!
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm kind of actually in favor of gay marriage, but I didn't like the way the Iowa Supreme Court basically created law from the bench. Oh, don't give me a lecture on "interpreting laws" or the Equal Protection Clause of any of that BS. The Iowa Legislature had the votes to pass it and Culver could have signed it into law, but the Democrats were too chicken to do it even though a lot of Iowans don't really care. So you get legislation through the back door via the courts, pardon the pun.
When the Iowa Judicial Nomination Commission has 7% Republicans, of course you're going to get a stacked liberal deck! That should be the first thing the Iowa House and Terry Branstad attempt to fix: a relatively equal distribution of Republicans and Democrats on that commission.
I'm sure there are many of us who vote "NO" on all judges - just because. I've been that way for decades. That's the system we've had in place for 48 years, so why should Rekha Basu be shocked - shocked! - that some group might attempt to oust one or as many of these "precious" Justices. We should be turning them over every chance we get! Same thing with these soft-on-crime District Court judges.
I was surprised by the number of people claiming that the "NO" vote for retaining judges was wrong or illegal in some way. That is the LAW. We get to vote on whether or not to retain judges based on their performance. Just because it has been basically a rubber stamp "yes" until now doesn't make yesterday's "no" votes wrong.
ReplyDelete