Gay Marriage | Iowa | News | Republican Party

Iowa Republicans Move to Slash Pay of Pro-Equality Judges

Iowa Republicans, the same group that has been trying to oust the Supreme Court judges who ruled to legalize same-sex marriage there in 2009, have filed legislation that would slash their salaries, Right Wing Watch reports.

IowaFrom the Iowa City Gazette:

A handful of House conservatives want to reduce the pay of Iowa Supreme Court justices involved in a 2009 decision striking down a ban on same-sex marriages as part of an effort to maintain the balance of power in state government.

“It’s our responsibility to maintain the balance of power” between the three co-equal branches of government, Rep. Tom Shaw, R-Laurens, said Tuesday.

The justices “trashed the separation of powers” with their unanimous Varnum v. Brien decision and implementation of same-sex marriage without a change in state law banning any marriages expect between one man and one woman, added Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull.

Their amendment to House File 120, the judicial branch budget bill, would lower the salaries of the four justices on the seven-member court who were part of the unanimous Varnum v. Brein decision to $25,000 – the same as a state legislator.

It’s not meant to be punitive, Alons and Shaw said Tuesday.
“We’re just holding them responsible for their decision, for going beyond their bounds,” Shaw said.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. disgusting

    Posted by: Alex | Apr 24, 2013 10:46:59 AM

  2. what a bunch of f*cking wackjob assholes. seriously, how do you only lower the pay of specific justices.

    Posted by: Not that Rob | Apr 24, 2013 10:49:47 AM

  3. Oh please do pass this legislation! I love to watch a good cat-fight!

    How in hell do they believe this could stand up to a constitutional challenge?

    Posted by: AdamTh | Apr 24, 2013 10:55:18 AM

  4. Clearly repugnicunts don't understand the constitution they pray to.

    Legislators write law
    High Courts interpret the law
    Executives enforce the law

    Clearly this move is clearly unlawful and it is time to start suing these idiots for the costs they incur the state for their foolishness.

    Posted by: QJ201 | Apr 24, 2013 10:56:08 AM

  5. Um, she should look up the meaning of punitive. "Holding them responsible for going beyond their bounds" sounds pretty punitive to me.

    Posted by: Brian | Apr 24, 2013 11:01:06 AM

  6. Thank you Iowa. You are making some to the other Republican controlled state legislatures look less stupid -- but only by comparison.

    Posted by: Chris&David | Apr 24, 2013 11:02:48 AM

  7. @Brian: Exactly. The Oxford English Dictionary defines punitive as "inflicting or intended as punishment." Um, I think that's a pretty good description of the bill.

    Posted by: RyanInWyo | Apr 24, 2013 11:04:26 AM

  8. Republicans are scum - all of them.

    Posted by: Ken | Apr 24, 2013 11:10:26 AM

  9. Petty b***ards. They are nothing short of an embarrassment to civil society. Ugh...!

    Posted by: Gary S. | Apr 24, 2013 11:10:54 AM

  10. Can any one of these bitter Bettys in Iowa please explain what damage has been sustained as a result of same-sex marriage there?

    Posted by: Frank | Apr 24, 2013 11:15:31 AM

  11. Those genius legislators apparently don't realize the court's ruling from 2009 will remain even if/when the justices do leave. Even if they do manage to get a new case before the court, and a new court rules against marriage equality - the couples married since that 2009 ruling will still be married in Iowa.

    Posted by: Chris&David | Apr 24, 2013 11:25:33 AM

  12. They're like desperate bugs on their backs uselessly flailing their tiny bug legs.

    And no matter what they try, it won't change the reality of marriage in IA.

    Posted by: Ernie | Apr 24, 2013 11:32:18 AM

  13. Believe me - as someone born/raised/still living in Iowa: I am ashamed that we have individuals like that who are elected to represent us at the State level. Representative government has certain bonuses, but here we clearly have illustrated one of the shortcomings.

    Posted by: iowan | Apr 24, 2013 11:44:03 AM

  14. You can't lower they pay of only 4 specific judges, you would have to lower the pay of all judges in that specific branch. Even if they pass won't actually work the way they think it will.

    Posted by: Nate | Apr 24, 2013 11:44:27 AM

  15. Wow, what a "classy" move. They just do NOT get up and it takes alot of chutzpah for Republicans to preach about "separation of powers" when that party is constantly on a quest to co-opt or undermine the judicial branch any way they can. Thankfully the Iowa Senate is still controlled by Democrats so the likelihood of this getting through at least that chamber seems questionable. Hopefully in a few years if they do get complete control and put this thing up for a vote it will blow up in their faces like it did in neighboring Minnesota.

    Posted by: Joseph | Apr 24, 2013 11:47:10 AM

  16. Scumbags. Just when you think they can't get any worse, they lower the bar.

    Posted by: Jack M | Apr 24, 2013 11:47:11 AM

  17. Could the zombies of the original founders of our government please rise from their graves and eat these nincompoops? Thanks.

    Posted by: bobbyjoe | Apr 24, 2013 12:11:17 PM

  18. This would be hilarious if it weren't so damn sad. Who elected these nincompoops who don't even have a basic understanding of how the various branches of government work? "Wahhhh! The judiciary didn't vote the way *I* wanted them too so I'm gonna try to get their salaries cut! But it's NOT a punishment, it's just payback for something they did!"

    The stupid, it BUUUURNSSSS!!!

    Posted by: Caliban | Apr 24, 2013 12:29:04 PM

  19. "The stupid, it BUUUURNSSSS!!!"

    That about sums it up.

    Posted by: Mike B. | Apr 24, 2013 12:39:17 PM

  20. I doubt that bill will get passed the democratically controlled Senate.. problem solved.

    Posted by: Terry | Apr 24, 2013 12:44:55 PM

  21. The anti-gay forces in Iowa are bordering on self-parody now. You've think that after their spectacular failure in the past several years they'd just accept the political reality of SSM in their state and move on to other issues. Why do they insist on drawing attention to themselves? What happened in Iowa was about the worst possible outcome from their perspectives. SSM becoming legal thru public referendum or legislative vote would at least have shown that the people simply disagreed with them. But the anti-gay forces had their ideal situation - judges legislated through the bench, the public getting angry and voting out several judges. But then, apparently, the people saw gay marriages taking place and decided they weren't such a bad thing. Democrats still kept the state senate and an anti-SSM state amendment has no chance now. The most recent election led to the affirmation of a pro-gay judge - proving that "judicial tyranny" works beautifully in making the voters more liberal over time.

    NOM and its allies in Iowa seem to be gluttons for punishment,

    Posted by: Mary | Apr 24, 2013 1:42:41 PM


    I say that those of you who live in Iowa should contact your attorney general and have these folks convicted of bribery, and then run out of office.


    Posted by: phluidik | Apr 24, 2013 1:52:59 PM

  23. @Mary, the judges did not legislate from the bench. They found that a provision of the law violated the constitution and they struck down that provision accordingly. That's a judicial function, not legislative.

    Posted by: JJ | Apr 24, 2013 1:58:20 PM

  24. We all know how much the Republicans love our Evangelical Christian Dominionist Founding Fathers, who would not hesitate for a moment to lower judicial salaries in retaliation for decisions they disagreed with.

    Oh wait, except they specifically included a clause in the Constitution forbidding this.

    Maybe Iowa Republicans need to take a page out of their book for a change.

    Posted by: Bill S. | Apr 24, 2013 2:30:51 PM

  25. Can you think of a better way to turn the state supreme court against the Republican party?

    I'm not saying this would remove the courts impartiality in matters before for it, but I wouldn't want to be an Iowa Republican with a case in front of them if this comes to pass.

    Posted by: Dearcomrade | Apr 24, 2013 4:34:43 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «W.H. Press Secretary Can't Think of an Action Obama Has Taken in the Past Year to Support ENDA: VIDEO« «