For Republican legislators in Iowa, it was not enough that three state supreme court justices who voted to strike down a ban on gay marriage were recently defeated in their reelection bids after being targeted by conservatives. Now, legislators want to impeach the remaining four justices from the unanimous decision.
Former gubernatorial contender (and campaign chair for Mike Huckabee) Bob Vander Plaats led the effort to strip the Court of justices voting to recognize the civil liberties of homosexual couples.
As I mentioned in the closing argument in the Porteous case on the Senate floor, there has been an increase in demands for impeachment in both the federal and state systems. Removal on the basis of a particular ruling would be a monstrous abuse of impeachment power and an attack on the very foundations of an independent judiciary.
Source:The Hill
Jonathan Turley
Go for it.
The more impeachment the better. Sooner rather than later.
It is an extra-legal tool given TO THE PEOPLE to remove judges they strongly disapprove of (but have not committed crimes, etc.) Corrupt individuals in the justice system and academe have intentionally kept the people in the dark about impeachment in order to increase their own abusive powers over the people.
If our court system is to be saved from the corrupt individuals who run it, more impeachment, not less, will be necessary.
Same-sex marriage is under the authority of state governments. There is NO power whatsoever given anywhere in the Constitution for the federal government to regulate marriage. Therefore that power falls to the states and or the people (i.e. 10th Amendment).
Impeach the dangerous, extremist, seditious judges who know no bounds to their corrupt usurpation.
Then the 9th Circuit court of appeals, out west, should have it’s judges shot…talk about bad rulings!!!
“Today whats up is down and whats down is up.Things seemed to be spinning out of control.”
Years ago Allen Iverson played for the Philadelphia 76ers and he was being hounded by reporters for missing practice and he was incensed that they kept hounding him about it,for he said when I play the game I give a 110% every night,he kept saying practice,this is about practice?
Well now we have one about (5) tickets:
New York Governor fined for accepting free Yankees tickets. Why aren’t the Yankees in trouble?
Craig Calcaterra
Dec 20, 2010, 1:36 PM EST
You’ll recall last March that the New York Commission on Public Integrity charged New York’s governor, David Paterson, with violating state ethics laws when he got free tickets to the opening game of the 2009 World Series from the Yankees. The case has run its course now, and yep, the governor has been found guilty. He was fined $62,125 for soliciting, accepting and receiving five complimentary tickets to Game One of the 2009 World Series for himself, two aides, his son and his son’s friend. Shocking that there is corruption in Albany. Truly, truly shocking.
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/20/new-york-governor-fined-for-accepting-free-yankees-tickets-why-arent-the-yankees-in-trouble/
Mike A.
You are right that this kind of right wing impeachment threat in Iowa could have a negative impact on the judiciary. Of course, that is probably the goal of the impeachment crowd. To prevent judges from making decisions based on the facts and the Law.
Under the Iowa constitution, the sole grounds for impeachment are “any misdemeanor or malfeasance in office.” The decision which Iowa Republicans apparently deem to constitute malfeasance was unanimous. While I agree with Tony Sidaway that the impeachment move is unlikely to go anywhere, the threat itself endangers the independence of the judiciary. When state legislators begin to translate “malfeasance” to mean any action or decision which their constituents find unacceptable, we begin to drift toward the tyranny of the majority, a genteel description of mob rule.
eniobob,
That is a good description. The Wizard of Oz comes to mind when the wicked witch claimed that Dorothy’s goodness was melting her. The Republicans make a living out of demonizing good legislation with one or two word labels. ie, the DREAM Act is referred to as “amnesty” for illegals!
This kind of political impeachment is hardly surprising. This seems entirely in keeping with the Republican/Tea Party approach to government. Democracy is only “real” democracy if it produces the results they want (otherwise they have a “2nd amendment remedy” for “erroneous” poll results). Similarly, they want “an independent, non-activist judiciary” that “limits its rulings to a strict interpretation of the Constitution” only so far as the judges rule the way they want.
The judges should threaten a multi million dollar abuse of power suit against the Republican leaders of this movement. Fight legal harassment with legal harassment.
“Removal on the basis of a particular ruling would be a monstrous abuse of impeachment power and an attack on the very foundations of an independent judiciary.”
Today whats up is down and whats down is up.Things seemed to spinning out of control,with no stopper(we the people)in sight.
There is also a challenge to the method of selecting the judges who sit on he Iowa Supreme Court.
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/12/09/lawsuit-challenges-iowas-judge-selection-system/
Thanks. That comment from Huckabee does set a similar tone, although it seems to be a comment on the electoral recalls rather than the impeachment motion.
The Don’t Ask. Don’t Tell repeal is probably set to drag on for most of next year, getting it up to certification from the service chiefs. During that time expect some stunts involving conscientious objections from evangelical chaplins, praying brigadier generals, preaching rear admirals and whatnot. It could well be that the fight has only just begun.
If the economy starts to recover the old culture war could be due for a comeback. It’s unlikely to do much against a resurgent Obama in the context of increasing employment and a grateful middle class, but it would tend to put social conservatives back in the game at the GOP. That’s something they badly need.
And you thought Boehner was bad? If these fellows come back you’re going to yearn for the return of old yeller.
Nah, who am I kidding? They’re yesterday’s men.
Tony Sidaway is right
Rule One of impeachments is that “You May Not Impeach For Mere Stupidity,” lest the halls of government be vacant!
It has been all about the judges for the Right for awhile now and they succeeded in the Supreme Court and now they are working on the state courts. Tony S., I think you are correct on both points. It doesn’t have to succeed in the legislature as long as they set down their markers for the next election cycle in order to get the base worked up.
What rcampbell said.
http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/mike_huckabees_important_remarks_on_iowa_justices_gay_marriage_traditionally_shrewd Huckabee has already involved himself in this, Tony S.
Conservatives; they hate us because they hate our freedoms. Imagine the nerve of those justices using their state Constitution to uphold equality instead of the Quran, I mean the Bible, I mean the Torah to reinforce and institutionalize the bigotry and hatred written in their holy books.
This just sucks……What ever happened to that SOP, I see the SOB is doing what they do well……I suppose that we would not have banks…..roads….the FDA….and people of color would be treated different than the whiteys…..if the Jurists did not do what they thought was correct……
I suppose the next logical step would be….they are still mostly farming and well…..will the cattle be next……
As The Hill notes, the Democrats control the state senate. So unless I’m missing something crucial this Republican-led attack on the independence of the judiciary isn’t likely to get anywhere.
I do wonder if this is some kind of play by social conservatives to create a handy local focal point (if not a litmus test) for candidates in the Republican Caucus in 2012.
I know this is completely off topic, but I want to ask a question. If President Obama (aka, Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire), wants to help the unemployed, why doesn’t he rescind the income tax on unemployment benefits? That tax didn’t exist until Ronald Reagan was in office.