Anti-gay Iowans Trying to Impeach Judges

The Hate Bus, from TPM Muckraker

Oh, for crying out loud. As wrong as it seemed to me that three judges were successfully un-retained in the November election, this is more wrong. The Supreme Court of Iowa declared that the law against same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, and that threw the bigots into a frenzy. So, in the vote to retain the three judges up for reinstatement--something that almost always happens--a successful campaign was mounted to get them bounced. Now, they're going to try to impeach the rest of the bench.

If the judges had done something illegal, or something unethical, I'd get it. If they'd overstepped their bounds, I'd almost get it. But they didn't. They performed their jobs as they are supposed to. They just came to a legal conclusion that a small but loud group of homophobes didn't like. I hope this fails, because impeachment should be reserved for something other than ruling in a way that torques off a hate group.

[Excerpt]

Anti-Gay Iowa Republicans Will Try To Impeach Supreme Court Justices



For conservatives angry over the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous decision last year to legalize gay marriage, getting three of the seven justices booted from the bench just isn't enough. Now, a handful of Republican lawmakers are now trying to impeach the remaining four. . .
 
Read more at: TPM Muckraker

Are Judges the Latest GOP/Tea Party Bogeyman?

Image of scary dude from source,
Think Progress

I had trouble writing the headline for this piece, because obviously, conservatives have been whining about "judicial activism" for a long time. But it does seem to be ramping up.  One of the more common phrases used is that "activist judges are legislating from the bench."  This phrase is baffling to me.  A judge has a case before him, he decides one way or the other, and then the law is affirmed or dismissed based upon that decision.  How exactly is this activism, or legislating from the bench?  Seemingly, it is when a judge rules in a way contrary to prevailing conservative opinion.  Do you remember any complaining from conservative quarters when the United States Supreme Court ruled that corporations can donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns (Citizens United)?  Didn't think so.

It's getting worse though.  Now, when a high-profile enough case irks the right-wing enough, the start campaigns to remove the judges in question.  This is a fairly new tactic, and kind of a disturbing one.  And it seems that this action is taken not for the merits of the decisions, but because the cases weren't decided in the right-wing's favor.  No sir, I don't like it.

[Excerpt]

Tea Party Nullifiers Seek Revenge Against Florida Supreme Court Justices

Earlier this year, the Florida Supreme Court nixed a state ballot initiative attempting to nullify part of the Affordable Care Act because the ballot language was misleading to voters.  In response, a Tea Party-affiliated group launched a campaign to remove two of the court’s justices from the bench. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

The Daily McBush: John McCain on Abortion Rights

The issue of abortion is sort of a non-issue for me, as it is very unlikely--to say the least--for the issue to ever affect me, even tangentially. I'm still generally pro-choice, but I don't get very animated about it.

Women on the other hand, particularly the activist variety that strongly supported Hillary Clinton do care very much about the issue. And before the follow through on their threats to vote for John McCain out of spite, they ought to watch this video. . .



From The Jed Report