Gay Marriage | Iowa | News

Iowa Republicans Target Another Supreme Court Justice Who Legalized Same-Sex Marriage

The Iowa GOP and right-wing activists, who were successful in ousting three pro-equality Supreme Court justices when they were up for retention in 2010, have set their sights on the only justice up for retention in November, the Des Moines Register reports:

SpikerChairman A.J. Spiker (right), in a statement emailed across Iowa this morning, called for Iowans to vote against Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins to “help end the bullying of activist judges once and for all.”

The Nov. 6 general election ballots will ask whether Wiggins should retain his seat on the bench. He is the fourth justice to come up for a retention vote since the court’s unanimous ruling in spring 2009. The first three justices, Marsha Ternus, David Baker and Michael Streit, were ousted by Iowa voters in fall 2010.

Several factors have taken some of the shine off the issue, including the passage of time, according to Iowa political insiders.

IowasupremecourtSaid Spiker in his statement:

“In 2010 Iowa voters chose to dismiss three activist judges who allowed their own politics to influence their obligation to uphold the Iowa Constitution. These three were among a handful of judges who chose to disregard years of legal precedent on the status of marriage and how it was to be defined.

“Instead of allowing the people of Iowa to decide this issue at the polls, these judges instead chose to impose their will upon the state and re-write history without weighing the merits of our laws and values. Regardless of political pressure or the state of cultural affairs at the moment, it is the people of Iowa through our elections that must be permitted to decide this important issue.

“Just as Iowans successfully showed in 2010, it is again time to put a check on this power and reign in an activist judge from his position of misused authority.

“This is the only chance voters have to make their voice heard and we must take the opportunity to remove Justice David Wiggins from his post and show him his arrogance and disregard for the law does indeed have consequences.

“On behalf of the Republican Party of Iowa, I urge all Iowans to go to the polls this November and vote ‘no’ on the retention of Justice Wiggins.

Read the full statement HERE.

 

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. A.J. Spiker is a closet case! Come out and enjoy the love instead of staying and having hate!

    Posted by: Randy | Aug 1, 2012 6:26:19 PM


  2. This is nothing. The harder we push, the harder they push back.
    It's just beginning.

    Posted by: Lonewolfen | Aug 1, 2012 6:30:49 PM


  3. Whoever had the "brilliant" idea to elect judges needs to be shot in the face

    Posted by: Steve | Aug 1, 2012 6:35:02 PM


  4. Well, she's pretty!

    Posted by: Bill | Aug 1, 2012 6:51:28 PM


  5. "...these judges instead chose to impose their will upon the state and re-write history..."

    That's kind of what the Supreme Court does. I'm curious if these people actually think about what their saying.

    Posted by: Matt | Aug 1, 2012 6:56:17 PM


  6. Goddammit Iowa! You make me ashamed to live here! DO NOT POLITICIZE OUR COURTS ANY FURTHER!

    Posted by: Jason | Aug 1, 2012 7:21:24 PM


  7. Republicans are evil.

    Posted by: Icebloo | Aug 1, 2012 7:23:13 PM


  8. Well he seems wise. "help end the bullying of activist judges once and for all.”

    I thought that he meant that activist judges were being bullied, and based on the photo, that he was on our side. A face that no one should love. Use "by," not "of," explain how there's no Supreme Court activism, and don't try to appropriate anything related to bullying. Jackass.

    Posted by: Paul R | Aug 1, 2012 7:38:06 PM


  9. This is just sad.

    Posted by: 99% | Aug 1, 2012 7:42:23 PM


  10. Sorry Judge Wiggins, and thanks for all you did for the people of my State. Before the gay marriage vote no one gave two craps about the "Judge" part of the Iowa ballot. I, along with 99% of the rest of the people here, didn't know a lick about the Supreme Court of Iowa. Now the GOP are ruining good public servants careers, and for what?

    They are like little kids, thrashing their arms and knocking things over because they can't have what they really want.

    Posted by: Mo | Aug 1, 2012 7:48:11 PM


  11. I thought the constitution was clear enough on equal protection, but no one seems 2 be paying attention. Equal rights should have been established eons ago. the whole system is corrupt.

    Posted by: Molc | Aug 1, 2012 7:50:43 PM


  12. Iowans need to organize and rally up against this entire proposal in a similar manner as to how we have done here in Minnesota against the proposed Constitutional amendments.
    Radicals who keep pushing these agendas are quickly being exposed both in name, and to what they really stand for.
    Keep pushing those lawsuits, enough law argued and decided on at all levels will help the law of the land be decided, yet again, in the manner it should have always been.
    Stupid is always short sighted. And stupid.

    Posted by: vwdavy | Aug 1, 2012 8:46:26 PM


  13. "Activist judge". What do you call a judge who sees a wrong and decides to right it?

    Since when do the people get to vote to deny rights to other people?

    Lynch mob party.

    Posted by: kodiak | Aug 2, 2012 6:53:31 AM


  14. First let me say - ISC judges are not elected, but do come up for retention votes.

    My hope is that with passage of time, the typical Iowan will again forget to turn the ballot over thus skipping the retention vote just like they mostly did before along with all the other crippy-crap items like extension service clerk ........

    The system is doing it the right way. It's just Iowan's wrongly got caught up in the 'moment' before. The big bad same-sex wolf didn't eat their children as feared, nor cleave their marriage in half.

    Posted by: Mary in Iowa | Aug 2, 2012 8:32:24 AM


  15. It doesn't make a difference if they're directly elected or up for retention votes. Both are horrible, deeply disturbing ideas that completely undermine the idea of an independent judiciary.

    Only two countries elect judges. The US and Japan. That shows how badly regarded this concept is.

    Posted by: Steve | Aug 2, 2012 9:35:57 AM


  16. what exactly has been the result of the three justices being ousted? has the law changed with new justices? has equal marriage been overturned?

    it would seem that this battle is fruitless since everything is still in place.

    Posted by: mike/ | Aug 2, 2012 9:36:03 AM


  17. @LONEWOLFEN: I agree. The fight has just begun and it is going to get NASTY. Everybody needs to accept this fact and prepare themselves accordingly. It will get ugly and it will get violent.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Aug 2, 2012 11:38:11 AM


  18. These are desperate measures spearheaded by extremists who cannot accept the UNANIMOUS court decision and will try anything to undo it. The problem, for them, is that they have failed. Marriage equality in Iowa isn't going anywhere, and it's highly unlikely their frothing will do anything but undermine the integrity of IA's justice system.

    And I disagree, LONEWOLFEN and JAMAL49: Aside from the hardcore bigots, people adapt quickly to the idea of marriage equality. It may be a harder public sell in IA (though, even there, a majority is indifferent) but in the other states where marriage equality is the law it's almost become a non-issue. No sky falling, no violence, mostly meh. If the hard-liners want a physical fight, prosecute them.

    Posted by: Ernie | Aug 2, 2012 11:48:51 AM


  19. What happened to the Justices in Iowa who favored marriage equality may be an omen for what is going to happen to Obama in november. I intend to vote for Obama just as I voted for Presidents Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Kerry, and Gore. Yep, I am usually out of step with the majority of Americans as is the democratic party.

    Posted by: andrew | Aug 2, 2012 3:46:52 PM


  20. Further proof that shows repukes/t-baggers would prefer to live in the past instead of going forward.

    Posted by: mmike1969 | Aug 5, 2012 8:45:05 PM


  21. I needed the name of the judge to vote out this November, and this article was all I needed, so thanks.

    Posted by: Brian | Sep 12, 2012 2:22:45 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Towleroad Guide to the Tube #1178« «