in my experience, to make an informed decision on these retention elections. Where is a voter to go to gather all the information he needs? For candidates and initiatives there are many sources, but on the judges, there seems to be no – even marginally – comprehensive source for anecdotes and data that would engender an informed vote.

If these sources are out there, I’d sure like to hear about them. Judicial tyranny over the voting citizens of this country is a grave threat, and the New Media is just the weapon that needs to be wielded.

The sword cuts both ways in popularly electing judges. The judiciary is not supposed to be a political arena.

This is why we eschew Obama’s empathy test for judges. We need less empathy and more rationality in our judicial system.

For every case you can point to where judges overruled the popular opinion like in gay marriage there are cases where you don’t want judges ruling on matters of law with an eye towards a Tuesday in November.

I can tell you, that for one, the corporate world would be in a pinch. There is a reason that any action brought against a corporation in state court is subject to motion for removal to federal court and why any corporation would prefer a federal bench trial to a jury trial.

The law is not up for popular vote. Sometimes that works against us and sometimes that works for us. But, that is the case with everything. Democracy is just the best out of bad alternatives.

An insulated judiciary may not work on some of these social issues where the philosopher kings sit on a cloud and tell us how we ought to view marriage. But a rigorous and insulated judiciary is crucial to commerce.

In my State, the push is on, by Progressives, to eliminate townships and centralize government at the county level, with formerly elected officials being appointed. This is of course for “efficiency”, and because our State Constitution is so “outdated”. These people are everywhere – both parties, schools, churches, corporations, government, bureaucracies, non-profits. The networks may be informal, but they are all on the same page, nonetheless.

Of judges ‘deciding’ a lawfully voted upon and passed state constitutional amendment/law/whatever shouldn’t be followed. These are the same people who are supposed to uphold that very law they are throwing aside aren’t they? I mean, once the residents of the state pass an amendment to the state constitution doesn’t it then become the way the judges are supposed to rule? Other than legislating from the bench where am I missing it?

The last two years is a perfect example of what happens when politicians or judges think they are untouchable.
They go against the will of the people and ignore the law.
I wish we could do this at the federal level.
Apparently there isn’t any law a single federal judge cannot strike down.
For example if you have some judges who are constantly being overruled on appeal then it might be time to question whether or not they understand what their job is before Obama appoints them to the SCOTUS.

Unfortunately the Senate has neglected it duty in screening judges and therefore has allowed the worst activist onto the bench. Even Republican Senators have been way to accommodating. Leftist activist judges have undermined the foundation of our country (and of our liberties), our Constitution.

It has gotten so bad, that I am convinced we need a new mechanism in place to hold bad judges accountable. We need some type of retention vote on the federal level, maybe not for the Supreme Court, but at least for all other positions. I am open to any other ideas that would check this seemingly unlimited power.

I wish every state could or would do the same thing. Get rid of Judges that do not follow the Constitution

Same way at the Federal Level. They should not have LIFETIME appointments. They should have to be re-confirmed every six years or so.

And the Congress should IMPEACH those that are not following the Constitution or Lie during their confirmation hearings.

Too many nominee’s Knowingly and Willingly LIE to get confirmed and then do exactly what they SWORE they would not do. That is Perjury. Lying to Congress is a criminal offense and should be treated as such with Nominee’s just like they do with baseball players.

…800+ judges in the federal judiciary. There are only 535 elected representatives of the people in the legislative branch. We don’t know the number in the executive branch with power, besides O and Joe, but if you take all the Cabinet types, all the czars, all the agency heads, all the commissioners, etc, that’s probably in the hundreds, too. The people are outnumbered

If legislatures would impeach judges who go off the reservation with judicial activism then this wouldn’t be necessary.

is a place you can go for info on judges. The Lucy Burns Institute at http://lburnsinstitute.org/ seems to be the “parent” of Judgepedia. At the Lucy Burns site you will also find info on the sunshine laws and learn how to use the freedom of information laws.

according to The Heritage Foundation:
http://www.insideronline.org/summary.cfm?id=13860

According to this, 39 states give citizens a voice concerning state supreme court Justices, but George Soros is trying to eliminate voters’ input and give the power to lawyers.

The article uses Michigan as one example. Here is the state’s story and its sequel:

“In 2008…organized labor and plaintiffs attorneys drew a bead on the Michigan Supreme Court, which was widely known in conservative legal circles as “the high court Ronald Reagan wished he had.” Four of the justices were strong believers in judicial restraint, two were judicial activists, and Justice Elizabeth Weaver, a nominal Republican, wobbled between them.”

(Background: The justices serve staggered eight-year terms. The voters elect and re-elect justices on a “Non-Partisan” part of the ballot, so there is no D or R by their names. I did not know until getting involved with the party this year that the candidates are nominated by the parties, and hence that their party affiliation is knowable.) Back at the ranch…

In 2008, a liberal judge, backed by progressives and the AFL-CIO, unseated one of the conservative justices. “Her election changed the line-up to a 3-to-3 standoff, with Weaver now the all-important “swing” vote.” — Heritage

Shortly before this year’s election, the turncoat “nominal Republican” Weaver resigned, enabling our Obama-Dem governor to appoint a Dem Justice in her place. This gave the appointed justice the status of an an incumbent on the ballot, which some say virtually guarantees “re-election” for state justices. But voters struck a blow for freedom in Michigan as well as in Iowa last week: We re-elected a Constitution respecting justice and replaced the Dem-appointed one with another Republican-nominated one. Three cheers for freedom!

http://detnews.com/article/20101103/POLITICS02/11030375/GOP-regains-control-of-Supreme-Court

I’m glad you wrote this diary, Mr. Streiff. Thank you. This subject interests me.

I appreciate the article re a very important topic.

But, why open by sniping at Sarah Palin and the Tea Party folks? What’s that about?

As a proud and reasonably well informed wearer of Tea Party T-shirts I resent the gratuitous and completely unnecessary comment.

Liberal judges appear to have absolutely no reservations about rewriting law and our Constitution against the will of the people. They were meant to be “independent” as a measure of balance against undue influence on their decisions, NOT as a cudgel against the will of the people and Constitutional process. Without such reservations, they have exceeded their Constitutional authority and should be removed forthwith, by whatever means necessary.

I have never in my lifetime seen a judiciary so eager to overrule the majority will of our citizens via fiats rooted in their own personal beliefs. How does that differ from a monarch or King who decides without popular intervention and based on personal whims? It does not and smacks of a shadow government which steals liberty and obfuscates Constitutional process. We fought a Revolution over very similar despicable and oppressive actions. I can think of nothing that would more fiercely stir the passions of our citizens.

Good riddance, I believe this electoral process and impeachment proceedings at the Federal level should become a common process for those judges defying the will of our populace.

That’s a distinction without a difference…

The advertising for this vote was informing us that these judges were activists who interpreted our constitution for us by redefining marriage. They had overturned a lower court ruling.

I voted to protect the constitution.
The vote in question was unanimous 7-0. We got rid of 3 this time. There are 4 left. And we are awake.

I have found it nearly impossible to find information on judges and I have tried. I understand some states have political party identified next to judges. Iowa does not have that. We just are provided what court the judge serves in.

As you’ve pointed out, Streiff, this is the first time Iowa voters have voted judges out in the almost 50 years they’ve been able to do so. There’s no reason to fear successful demagoguery from the bench.

In PA our Supreme Court is elected and retained for 10 year terms. Long enough to give them freedom, and since the current constitution was adopted in 1968 only one justice has ever lost a retention election.

Ideally a GOP-controlled House and Senate would start impeaching the most flagrant judicial activists on the bench, but it’s going to be a long fight to undo all of the activist precedents of the past century.

I wouldn’t mind seeing a constitutional provision for recall or nonretention by the voters – maybe start at the Courts of Appeals, and open the elections to the voters in each circuit’s jurisdiction?

regarding the judges past rulings. I know that I searched and searched for resources and could not find them whenn our state judges came up for re-election, so thank you to those of you who posted some resources. We need to turn our attention to these elections and make them every bit as front and center as the elections for Congress. I am certain that is how Iowa got it done (way to go guys).
I would love to see this spread to the Federal level. Since when did judges become above the law? Is not subversion of the Constitution treason? Congress needs to subject these judges to more scrutiny (real scrutiny) and quit playing politics. Judges must be accuntable for their rulings as it relates to the Constitution.