Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
seat fillers

Can This Lawsuit Put Iowa’s 3 Gay Marriage-Supporting Supreme Court Justices Back On The Bench?

Citing a ballot technicality that last month ousted the three Iowa Supreme Court justices who joined the unanimous decision legalizing same-sex marriage, three attorneys are mounting a lawsuit to reverse the decision because, according to the Iowa Constitution, the judges’ retention votes must appear “on a separate ballot”; they did not. The suit seeks to reinstate David Baker, Michael Streit, and Marsha Ternus. To which I wonder: While the judges maintain they did the right thing, and would not have voted differently knowing they’d lose their jobs, do they even want their old gigs back as the result of a lawsuit?

By:           JD
On:           Dec 16, 2010
Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,
  • 15 Comments
    • Daez
      Daez

      That seems so incredibly dodgy. To throw out the vote of the people over such a simple technicality is absurd.

      Of course, all you good minded liberals will rush in and say this is a good thing. You won’t stop to think that if the judges had been ousted for not supporting gay marriage, the other side would be able to make this same argument.

      It seems like the law in Iowa needs changed instead of throwing out the vote.

      Dec 16, 2010 at 10:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hf2hvit
      hf2hvit

      @Daez: Why don’t trolls like you just put a loaded gun up to your head and prove what gun rights can do?

      Dec 16, 2010 at 10:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ronbo
      Ronbo

      @Daez: Who is paying you to spread this kind of troll shit? Obviously, your comments paint you as:

      uneducated
      white powered
      bigoted
      hetrosexual
      religious (self proclaimed)
      small minded
      sexually perverted

      What are you doing on this website (if not trolling for $$$)?

      Dec 16, 2010 at 11:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • joe K
      joe K

      Daez,
      you are obviously not a student of the law, even putting your bigotry aside. Mayn cases have been decided on a technicality. A technicality is not just some lame excuse, but it part of the reasons we have laws. one form of a technicality may be the loss of a paper trail in evidence when someone may be being framed. Another technicality right now are all these forged documents causing some people to loose thier homes.

      And so what if the other die could make the same argument. the decison just says that the ballot was technically wrong, and I would pllaude the other side to make the same case, because that is how the legal system works.

      Would you be making such a stink if that was the case?

      Also it is not the “law” per se, it is the Iowa Consitiution, a document that seems to have been working and getting adjusted all these many years. Would you suggest the same for freedom of speach if you thought it went against your beliefs?

      Get your head out of the ground and try to do some thinking if that is at all possible.

      Dec 16, 2010 at 12:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez
      Daez

      @joe K: I’m quite aware of cases being decided on technicalities.

      I absolutely would be against this move if it was the “other die.”

      My point is that once the people have spoken it should stand as such. Sure, the ballots might have been messed up, but its still a technicality.

      I still stand by my original statement that throwing out the vote of the people FOR ANY REASON rather legal or not is just a slap to the faces of the people that voted.

      @Ronbo: I don’t need paid to hold a mirror up to your face. How am I uneducated? Because I don’t know who the hell Harvey Milk was? I’m willing to bet, even after the release of the movie, over half the people in this country don’t know or give a rats ass about who Harvey Milk was.

      I have never said anything that even remotely leads to the conclusion that I am white powered. While I might not be attracted to Asian men (although their women are beautiful) and think Dan Choi is fugly it doesn’t make me a racist. Neither does thinking that most black people would not want to live in small town USA (that is just honesty not racism).

      How the hell am I bigoted? Because I don’t tow the party line? I’m less bigoted than most of the people that post here. I can assure you of that.

      Trust me when I tell you I love to suck dick and get fucked way to much to ever be labeled as heterosexual. I just don’t think we make friends and influence people by declaring war on them. There are people that post here that think that “breeders” should all be shot. I don’t see you calling them out.

      I’m very proud to be religious. There is not a damn thing wrong with religion. There is something wrong with you when you can’t separate Fred Phelps from actual religion. Let me just tell you that if Fred Phelps didn’t have religion to hide behind he would still be talking about his message of hate and protesting funerals. He is a raving lunatic not a man of god. No church, except his own, upholds his “ideals.”

      I can tend to be small minded. Obviously, so can you or you wouldn’t be attacking me for my viewpoints just because you don’t agree with them.

      How the hell did you know I was sexually perverted? I personally love talking about, having, watching, demonstrating sex. Thank you for such a wonderful compliment. What is done between consenting adults is all for the fun, and should be very sexually perverted. I feel bad for you if you aren’t remotely sexually perverted.

      I’m posting here to piss people off and make them think. Maybe you will take some of your angst that you use by bashing me for thinking differently than you and actually get out there and do something with it.

      Oh, by the way, simply writing your congressman is NOT doing something.

      Dec 16, 2010 at 12:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul Mc
      Paul Mc

      @Daez: We get you like bum sex. Great. What you don’t get that “will of the people” requires checks and balances otherwise you get an elective dictatorship. The Nazis were voted into power. The minutiae of the workings of Judicial system are a key part of avoiding such dictatorship.

      Civil rights, or the taking away of rights, do not just proceed on the basis of voting.

      Dec 16, 2010 at 2:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GetBalance
      GetBalance

      If divine justice states these guys deserve their jobs back, then divine justice will prevail due to a technicality. Cheers on that verdict going down.

      Dec 16, 2010 at 3:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez
      Daez

      @Paul Mc: Please explain to me how this has anything to do with checks and balances?

      It doesn’t. It has to do with a law that is most likely defunct (I’m sure this isn’t the first time that Iowa justices have been voted for on the same ballot) that seeks to overturn the will of the people through a legal technicality.

      Besides, if the vote is ruled unconstitutional wouldn’t that just mean they take another vote? Do you honestly think it will end differently?

      What I have no clue about, but maybe others can enlighten me, is, wouldn’t this case eventually go to the Iowa Supreme Court? So, wouldn’t it be heard by the three incoming justices or the three outgoing ones?

      Dec 16, 2010 at 3:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      In No 8, Daez trolled, “Besides, if the vote is ruled unconstitutional wouldn’t that just mean they take another vote? Do you honestly think it will end differently?”

      It could easily end differently. According to http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc&sc2=news&sc3&id=112392 “Anti-gay group the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) had vowed to see the justices removed, and predicted that the justices’ ouster would serve as a warning to other judges around the nation. NOM and other out of state interests poured at least $1 million into Iowa in the effort to unseat the justices, while groups supporting the justices raised $200,000.”

      If you don’t think a million dollars made a difference in the outcome, you are deluded. There’s no reason to believe that NOM and company would cough up another $1 million if there was a new vote – they already made their point that they will target justices who don’t vote the way NOM likes so on a second vote, NOM would get less for its money.

      Dec 16, 2010 at 4:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GayGOP
      GayGOP

      @Daez: It is highly unlikely that any of the 6 Justices involved would be able to hear the case. They would recuse themselves. In fact, they probably would be forced to recuse themselves from the case, and could make no decision.

      Dec 16, 2010 at 6:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GayGOP
      GayGOP

      Oh, and frankly, I’m as conservative as Clarence Thomas, and I knew in eighth grade (from a failing urban public school, no less), and still know now, that the Courts must ignore popular will, and must refuse to be bound thereby. Judges are there to judge the law, and the law, whether the people like it or not, is the law. The people can effect change by electing new representatives, or by putting forward a popular initiative, but the people cannot simply ignore the law, or order their judges to so do. Furthermore, technicalities are not stupid little niggling points of law, like improper paper stapling, but serious legal issues.

      Dec 16, 2010 at 6:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kyle
      Kyle

      I can only hope that nothing changes. Though these three lawyers may see themselves as mavericks, nonetheless, this could cause huge repercussions for the future of LGBT rights in our state.

      The people DID speak, and however much I disagree with it, we cannot simply just stay that decision. LGBT people and its cause would be hated even more.

      Dec 16, 2010 at 8:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller
      Brian Miller

      That seems so incredibly dodgy. To throw out the vote of the people over such a simple technicality is absurd.

      But enough about Joe Miller and the Tea Party’s lawsuit in Alaska, this story is about Iowa…

      Dec 16, 2010 at 8:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CG
      CG

      I am a resident of Iowa and find hope in this technicality. One of my relatives served on the Iowa Supreme Court for 10 years and I’m quite sure he would have been outraged by the measure based on revenge of taking away people’s rights based on a bigot holding a huge grudge. With the new small minded governor coming into office, we don’t have a lot of hope right now. I for one hope this lawsuit keeps some of the most qualified and talented professionals in this state on the bench.

      Dec 16, 2010 at 10:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stenar
      Stenar

      @Daez: What’s the point of having laws if they’re not followed? This vote should be nullified, but a second vote scheduled.

      Dec 18, 2010 at 3:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.