Todd Dorman, one of this blog's long-time favorite columnists, cranked out a bitter rant a few days ago in the Cedar Rapids Gazette against the Bob Vander Plaats-led group that created a campaign that successfully took out three of the Iowa Supreme Court Justices up for retention who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage.
Are appointed judges somehow untouchable? Is their term sacrosanct? These columnists across Iowa working for dying newspapers seem to be pushing the meme that because nobody has bounced judges or justices since it became possible to do so in 1962 then we should never attempt it.
Look, you've got Todd Dorman all pissy about it. Naturally, you have Rekha Basu praying at the altar of government, as well as the "creative writers" on the Des Moines Register's Editorial Broad.
3-time-arrested drunk driving former Democrat Congressman Dave Nagle wrote a cranky letter to the Mason City Glob Gazette.
The Quad City Times believes that the justices will now have to take into account popular opinion when making future rulings, which is utterly stupid. How dumb do you have to be to believe that? That is not going to happen.
Janele Jameson at the Burlington Hawk Eye is whining and moaning about it, along with all sorts of other crap she's read recently on Facebook. Cry baby.
The Sioux City Journal says the removal of the justices sets an "ugly precedent" and offers up this crackpipe idea:
The retention vote should have been about something bigger than a single court decision. It should have been about protecting independence and integrity in our judicial system by keeping politics and all its inherent negative baggage out of our courtrooms.What's wrong with that?
Instead, it became a quest for political retaliation, pure and simple.
No, seriously. What's wrong with that????
That's the way our system is made. Right?
Since 1962.
What is your alternative? Having appointed justices and other judges with lifetime appointments? Is that what you want?
How come none of you columnists give a shit about the Iowa Judicial Nominating Committee being stacked with 86% Democrats and 7% Republicans?
Could any one of you please write a column defending the political makeup of the Iowa Judicial Nominating Committee?
No, you won't even bother mentioning it.
I know what you columnists and editorial boards want, but you won't say it. You don't want any group of people to get together and touch anything that liberals have created. Whether it's some law made up by the Iowa Supreme Court that Democrats in the Legislature were too chickenshit to pass even though they had the votes, or some entitlement, or $90 million a year for public pre-schools which does nothing for 4 year olds. The only thing you all stand for is wrecking private businesses, raising taxes, and increasing the welfare state and the size of government.
It is interesting that no newspaper columnist or editorial board throughout Iowa is coming out and saying that the people banding together and successfully mounting a campaign to oust the justices in a legal manner the way the Vander Plaats group did is technically a good thing.
It is! Regardless of what your opinion is concerning gay marriage. Just because your side got out-maneuvered in the voting booth doesn't mean it's wrong.
Retention votes, either way, are political votes.
Get over it.
And it doesn't mean that gay marriage is going away.
If you don't like the way things are done - change them! Get together and change them! If you don't like judges or justices having lifetime appointments, or you don't like their opinions on matters, or you think they're soft on criminals, or you know they're a partisan Democrat or Republican, or you don't like Drake University Law School graduates, or whatever, then feel free to vote the way you do on retention or get a bunch of people together and mount a campaign. What's wrong with that?
And there's more than just the issue of ousting justices because of their gay marriage ruling going on here. If you're a newspaper columnist and you're braying just about that, you really need a kick in the pants about the other factors at play.
Dorman's articles have become increasingly left leaning over the past few years.
ReplyDeleteone thing i hate about these judge rants by the left is that they assume i voted for no retention because of gay marriage issue. when in fact i vote no because of the courts abuse of the constitution on several rulings (eminent domain, red light camera, etc, etc).
Agreed, there was way more to this than gay marriage. This was a way to send a signal to justices that they can't do what ever the hell they want with relation to the constitution and not be held to account.
ReplyDelete