« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Oh Nooozzzzzzz. We can’t touch the judges.

There is some ridiculous handwringing in this Washington Post article about voters daring — DARING I say — to throw judges off the bench for finding gay marriage in a state constitution.

How dare the people exercise their right.

The effort in Iowa worries not only gay rights advocates but some legal experts who say it is wrong to punish judges for an unpopular decision. For critics of judicial elections, Iowa is offering a compelling example of the peril of subjecting judges to voters’ whims.

Backers of the campaign say they are simply exercising their democratic right to rein in a judiciary that has overstepped its authority on same-sex marriage and other issues. . . .

He and others worry it will politicize Iowa’s court system and have a chilling effect on judges nationwide.

A chilling effect on judges is exactly what this country needs. I’m a big fan of the idea of impeaching that federal judge in San Francisco. When judges deviate from societal norms so dramatically hiding being rights they themselves have divined from constitutions that no one else sees, they should be driven from their offices, their pensions revoked, and barred from ever holding office again.

Yes, it is punitive. But it must be. Frankly, judges should live in fear of the people removing them from office as much as your standard politician does. The pendulum has swung too far in favor of a judicial oligarchy and while it would be equally bad to swing the whole way back to mob rule, we could stand a correction.

Sandra Day O’Connor says judicial elections create “politicians in robes.” Right now we have a group of kings and queens in robes at the federal level. They have become our masters and tyrants. Until we punish them through defunding their offices, revoking their jurisdiction, and impeaching them we can complain all we want, but nothing will change.

And yes, we can defund their offices. Though we cannot take away their salaries, I have zero problem cutting their budgets otherwise. If they are going to force their values onto society as a whole, they can do so out of their own pocket.

COMMENTS

  • stephaniet

    We the people are sick and tired of being dictated to, and I think we just aren’t going to take it anymore!

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    VB

  • indylawyer

    Insulating judges from popular outrage makes sense if they are acting as judges and trying to interpret the law. But if they are going to act as legislators and try to force their perverted will on the rest of us, they need to be treated as legislators and removed for such outrages.

  • Newshound3161

    The judges and courts have become a law unto themselves in many instances and should be reigned in back to their CONSTITUTIONAL standards and mandates. Not being a lawyer (nor playing one on TV) I may be wrong, but I have always disagreed with the courts mandating remedies when they rule. It seems to me they should give guidance and instruction to the other branches on the constitutionality of a law and leave it to them to correct the error per legislation. On a side note, I also think that many of the “regulations” that various bureaucrats saddle us with should be deemed unconstitutional and removed as well!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    we should treat them like same as he has advocated ending life time tenure for SCOTUS justices via a term limit amendment.

  • drohan00

    Why do states let their people throw their judges out, if it is wrong to throw the judges out?

    I say vote ‘em all out and then have new ones appointed. I always vote against the judges.

    I like Erick’s position on de-funding their offices. Make them do all their own work, and freeze their salaries. Then we might bring them to heel.

  • d_lamar

    As a lawyer, and I do play one in real life, I have long believed that the tyranny of unaccountable judges could be the death knell of this country. I believe that any judge who becomes a dictator by making decisions outside their jurisdiction should be removed from office and punished for perjury. Obviously, when they took the oath to become a judge, they swore to support and defend both the federal and their state constitution. Maybe they had their fingers crossed.

  • BA Cyclone

    The recourse is right there in the Iowa Constitution.

    Good grief, why on Earth would such a provision be allowed if it were not designed for just such a purpose?

    Shall we allow the “protectors of discourse” in newspaperland to define for us what is the proper reason for us to vote yes/no on a particular justice?

    This is RIGHT on point:

    A chilling effect on judges is exactly what this country needs. … Frankly, judges should live in fear of the people removing them from office as much as your standard politician does. The pendulum has swung too far in favor of a judicial oligarchy and while it would be equally bad to swing the whole way back to mob rule, we could stand a correction.

    Further, in Iowa (as in several states I understand) there is a curious setup where the Governor technically does not directly appoint justices to the Supreme Court, as does the President for the SCOTUS. There is an “advisory panel” that selects a group of nominees from which the Governor can choose. I am not sure if he is even allowed to go off the board and choose someone else. It seems like a double-helping of oligarchy in my view.

    THANKFULLY there is electoral recourse!

    This article contains a bit of background on how the system works:

    Only four judges, all from lower courts, have been removed by voters since Iowa adopted its current merit-based selection system.

    Under that system, a nonpartisan panel interviews applicants for judicial openings, selecting a field of three finalists. Those candidates are submitted to the governor, who makes the final choice without legislative approval. Voters can decide near the end of judges’ terms whether they should remain in office.

    The system was created in 1962. Before then the justices were appointed by popular election. The horror!

    LUV Iowa

  • JoeG

    “He and others worry it will politicize Iowa?s court system…”

    The court system politicized itself the moment it overruled the vote of the people.

    If judges want to be exempt from politics, don’t be a politician. That means when the citizenry votes, let it stand. The moment they override the votes, they are being a politician.

  • minncon

    The Constitution says Supremes shall serve “during good behavior.” And Fed Judge terms are modeled on the Supremes’.

    So who determines what constitutes “good behavior?” Could Congress? Could the people?

    If either branch of government (“the people” tend to be forgotten as an unnamed “branch” of government) determines Justice or Judge so-and-so is exhibiting “bad behavior” (perhaps, say, determining a duly enacted Constitutional Amendment to be invalid)… could that person be removed from the bench?

    And what body would then hear the inevitable appeal?

    Oh, it gives me a headache to ponder! (But it would be worth it, to restore authority to the people.)

  • constitutionalconservative

    And I’m hoping we’ll get it when some of these new Republicans take office. Our current officeholders and both too timid and uncreative. If we want to clamp down on judicial tyranny, we have to make judges know that if they legislate from the bench, they will be held accountable..

    The dirty little secret is that– other than what we do on judges, elections don’t matter that much. CA passed Prop. 187 in 1994 to stop giving benefits to illegal aliens. It passed overwhelmingly, with 59% of the vote. If federal judges hadn’t struck it down on absurd grounds,we might indeed have been able to “Save our state” as the initiative promised.

  • realskinny

    to judges whims? The people will make mistakes. They’ve made a lot the last two national elections. But the people can correct their mistakes, as they will do this November. When the judges are unelected and unaccountable who corrects their mistakes? Why should the people have to live under the rule of despotic lawyers with no remedy.

  • Charlie

    … by more judges after voting out three supremes this november? I’m an Iowan (or Iowegan, to many) and the effort is being well publicized here. I look forward to voting NO on retention.

  • Charlie

    BTW – Our former Governor and now, Governor Wannabee in Iowa, appointed several of the Supremes.