| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
23 Aug 2006 10:27:50 AM |
| Object: |
Rightards crack down on judges who disagree with them. |
From The Associated Press, 8/23/06:
http://www.globegazette.com/articles/2006/08/23/local/doc44ebd33551981114547637.txt#blogcomments
Judges asked to declare their stances
By The Associated Press
DES MOINES --
A newly formed group called Iowans Concerned About Judges is asking
about 80 judges who are up for retention this November to declare
their positions on a number of controversial issues.
The group, made up of a handful of conservative organizations,
contends Iowans have a right to know how judges feel about same-sex
marriage, abortion, assisted suicide, eminent domain, displaying the
Ten Commandments in courtrooms and schools and other issues
The five-page judicial questionnaire, containing 15 questions, was
e-mailed this month to judges who are up for retention.
The two-week deadline to return the form is Thursday.
Chuck Hurley, president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, said voters
want to be informed when deciding whether to retain judges.
Part of their concern, he said, is that judicial activism has crept
into the American judiciary.
The questionnaire aims to bring accountability, he added.
Other organizations that are part of Iowans Concerned About Judges
include the Iowa Christian Alliance, Concerned Women for America of
Iowa, Professional Educators of Iowa and Focus on the Family.
In Iowa, judges are appointed through a merit-selection process that
was approved by voters in the 1960s.
Judges in Iowa do not face an opponent in retention elections, but
instead voters decide whether to keep a judge in office.
Supreme court judges are up for retention every eight years, while
court of appeals and district court judges are up every six years.
Drake University politics professor Rachel Paine Caufield, a
consultant for the American Judicature Society’s Hunter Center for
Judicial Selection, said the questionnaire doesn’t tap into a judge’s
understanding of Iowa law, but instead is "purely politically
motivated."
"Basic respect for the judiciary would indicate that voters shouldn’t
want judges to respond to these questionnaires," she said.
"If you want your courts to be fair and impartial ... then that
requires some restraint on the part of judges themselves."
Hurley said the questionnaire states that the judges’ responses
indicate their "current views on issues, and do not constitute any
pledge, promise or commitment, to reach any particular result in a
case."
He added that Iowa’s Code of Judicial Conduct was recently changed to
reflect a U.S. Supreme Court decision that banned restrictions on
judicial candidates’ ability to give their views on legal or political
issues.
"Clearly, candidates for judicial office should now be able to express
their views on disputed legal and political issues without fear of
being sanctioned by judicial or ethics authorities," the questionnaire
reads.
Hurley said Tuesday that he didn’t have a tally of how many judges had
responded to the questionnaire.
If many refuse to respond, he said "Iowa voters will have to decide if
they want to live under a judiciary that treats them contemptuously by
mandated voter ignorance."
If judges respond that they believe the state’s judicial conduct canon
continues to prohibit them from giving their views, Hurley said there
could be a legal challenge to the ethics code for violating the First
Amendment.
Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Louis A. Lavorato agreed that judges
have a right to announce their position on an issue, but he cautioned
them to keep in mind that their impartiality may be called into
question and that they may have to decline cases involving those
issues.
"For this reason, the public should be wary of voting for a judge who
promises to rule a certain way," Lavorato said in a statement.
"In our system of government, we expect judges to rule according to
the law regardless of their personal views. We also expect them to
make decisions free of political intimidation and influence."
Lavorato suggests that if voters want to learn about judges who will
appear on the retention ballot, they should study the judicial
evaluation conducted by the Iowa State Bar Association.
The evaluation, which rates judges on professional qualifications and
skills, will be available in October.
____________________________________________________________
Yeah. We don' need no steenkin' judges who disagree with rightards.
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Political Pagan" |
|
| Title: Re: Rightards crack down on judges who disagree with them. |
23 Aug 2006 11:45:07 AM |
|
|
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:g7toe21afmhkm5113u1okm0u1gvtdhc5oq@4ax.com:
The group, made up of a handful of conservative organizations,
contends Iowans have a right to know how judges feel about same-sex
marriage, abortion, assisted suicide, eminent domain, displaying the
Ten Commandments in courtrooms and schools and other issues
Here we go again. Politics over law and the constitution. Any of these
judges that don't share their views are going to be labeled as corrupt, the
ones that do share the views will be great judges.
--
"The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and
balance for one another. It is within the court’s duty to ensure that power
is never condense[d] into a single branch of government." - Judge Anna
Diggs Taylor
.
|
|
|
| User: "SON OF HARRY HOPE" |
|
| Title: Re: Rightards crack down on judges who disagree with them. |
23 Aug 2006 12:32:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:45:07 GMT, Political Pagan
<pookinpnub@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote:
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:g7toe21afmhkm5113u1okm0u1gvtdhc5oq@4ax.com:
The group, made up of a handful of conservative organizations,
contends Iowans have a right to know how judges feel about same-sex
marriage, abortion, assisted suicide, eminent domain, displaying the
Ten Commandments in courtrooms and schools and other issues
Here we go again. Politics over law and the constitution. Any of these
judges that don't share their views are going to be labeled as corrupt, the
ones that do share the views will be great judges.
Judges who make up law and find things in the constitution that do not
exist should be dumped. I don’t want their views I want them to follow
the law, not make it up as they go.
--
"The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and
balance for one another. It is within the court’s duty to ensure that power
is never condense[d] into a single branch of government." - Judge Anna
Diggs Taylor
HI MOM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pud" |
|
| Title: Re: Rightards crack down on judges who disagree with them. |
24 Aug 2006 03:00:03 AM |
|
|
"SON OF HARRY HOPE" <HHH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44ec9150.4831601@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:45:07 GMT, Political Pagan
<pookinpnub@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote:
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:g7toe21afmhkm5113u1okm0u1gvtdhc5oq@4ax.com:
The group, made up of a handful of conservative organizations,
contends Iowans have a right to know how judges feel about same-sex
marriage, abortion, assisted suicide, eminent domain, displaying the
Ten Commandments in courtrooms and schools and other issues
Here we go again. Politics over law and the constitution. Any of these
judges that don't share their views are going to be labeled as corrupt,
the
ones that do share the views will be great judges.
Judges who make up law and find things in the constitution that do not
exist should be dumped. I don't want their views I want them to follow
the law, not make it up as they go.
*****. You don't want judges that don't rule in your favor. Plain
and simple. The definition of an activist judge is nothing more than a
judge that rules against republicans.
Jeremy Olson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Rightards crack down on judges who disagree with them. |
23 Aug 2006 01:57:47 PM |
|
|
"SON OF HARRY HOPE" <HHH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44ec9150.4831601@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:45:07 GMT, Political Pagan
<pookinpnub@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote:
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:g7toe21afmhkm5113u1okm0u1gvtdhc5oq@4ax.com:
The group, made up of a handful of conservative organizations,
contends Iowans have a right to know how judges feel about same-sex
marriage, abortion, assisted suicide, eminent domain, displaying the
Ten Commandments in courtrooms and schools and other issues
Here we go again. Politics over law and the constitution. Any of these
judges that don't share their views are going to be labeled as corrupt,
the
ones that do share the views will be great judges.
Judges who make up law and find things in the constitution that do not
exist should be dumped. I don't want their views I want them to follow
the law, not make it up as they go.
Since most of the dumbassed issues in the article are directly against the
Constitution (which is why the rightards need amendments to enact them),
this is a dumbassed argument based on lies.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "robw" |
|
| Title: Re: Rightards crack down on judges who disagree with them. |
23 Aug 2006 02:43:20 PM |
|
|
You just made Political Pagan's point.
Nitwit.
"SON OF HARRY HOPE" <HHH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44ec9150.4831601@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:45:07 GMT, Political Pagan
<pookinpnub@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote:
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:g7toe21afmhkm5113u1okm0u1gvtdhc5oq@4ax.com:
The group, made up of a handful of conservative organizations,
contends Iowans have a right to know how judges feel about same-sex
marriage, abortion, assisted suicide, eminent domain, displaying the
Ten Commandments in courtrooms and schools and other issues
Here we go again. Politics over law and the constitution. Any of these
judges that don't share their views are going to be labeled as corrupt,
the
ones that do share the views will be great judges.
Judges who make up law and find things in the constitution that do not
exist should be dumped. I don’t want their views I want them to follow
the law, not make it up as they go.
--
"The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and
balance for one another. It is within the court’s duty to ensure that
power
is never condense[d] into a single branch of government." - Judge Anna
Diggs Taylor
HI MOM
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
