Voters Throw Out Their State Supreme Court Justices

[woodandsteel]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/art...three-justices

Iowa allows voters to decide on wether or not to keep their judges, including those that serve on the Iowa Supreme Court. Last night, all three justices were voted out.

Granted, all three were pretty liberal. I'm just wondering if voting State Supreme Court Justices out of office is a good idea. Would this lead to a politicized Supreme Court?

The good thing about this, is that Iowa elected in a Republican as Governor. Although, the outgoing Governor was good enough to support the new "Shall Carry" law in Iowa.

[ryanm]

In this case, it was the gay marriage issue

[woodandsteel]

In this case, it was the gay marriage issue

That surprises me. Iowa is usually somewhat liberal on issues like that.

Maybe the voters didn't like the fact that the Supreme Court decided to act on a law passed by the legislature.

We are a wierd state. Just look at our two Senators. They are polar opposites.

Just wondering if people agree that voting out the Supreme Court (Talking State SC here) is a good idea.

[ryanm]

I think by and large alot of Iowans are wanting to get back to core values. I think gay marriage resonated negatively with many. Des Moines and Iowa City are pretty liberal, the rest of the state--not so much. I grew up in Des Moines, went to UofI and still managed to somehow stay conservative.

[500grains]

Last night, all three justices were voted out.
.

Good. I always vote against all judges because too many of them are arrogant and biased. They need to be humbled.

All of the judges on the federal 9th circuit need to be voted out. Or just have all their cases taken away.

[woodandsteel]

The thing about the Supreme Court's decision that worried me, was how the court may handle challenges to Iowa's new Shall Carry Law. I know that the Sheriff's Associtaion had talked about challenging the law. So, it may be a good thing that these three are taking a walk.

[woodandsteel]

Ok, reading is fundamental.

It wasn't the entire Supreme Court. Only three of the seven Justices. And apparently the Justices are placed on the ballot for rentention every 8 years. The eight year retention votes are staggered among the justices.

If anything, this should send a clear message to the other four justices, about judicial activism. Not to mention the three new justices that will be getting sworn in next year.

eta; Still not sure how good of an idea this is. As far as keeping the judiciary independent of politics.

[chadbag]

eta; Still not sure how good of an idea this is. As far as keeping the judiciary independent of politics.

It's part of checks and balances.

And judges cannot escape politics. They often put things in their own personal politics and those who appoint them are definitely playing politics.

[woodandsteel]

It's part of checks and balances.
And judges cannot escape politics. They often put things in their own personal politics and those who appoint them are definitely playing politics.

You're right.

Maybe this vote to retain justices should be more common.

There's a couple of U.S. Supreme Court Justices I'd like to vote out. And they just got sworn in.

[dookie1481]

Good. I always vote against all judges because too many of them are arrogant and biased. They need to be humbled.

All of the judges on the federal 9th circuit need to be voted out. Or just have all their cases taken away.

Uh, no. Not Kozinski.