Nailed It

On March 8th I predicted that Governor Big Lug Nut would appoint David Baker to the Iowa Supreme Court.

Survey says...

Culver appoints Appeals Court Judge Baker

I logically deduced that Baker would get the nod because he raised the most dough for Dummycrats and the scientific community is united in that fact.

One of these things is not like the other

As a prognosticator I make a great meteorologist and the scientific community is united in that fact.

With that in mind I'm willing to tip the scales towards David Baker to be appointed by the Big Lug as the next Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court.

Simple mathematics helped me reach my conclusion.

Baker has contributed more $ to Dummycrats than the other finalist Connie Alt.

The third finalist Thomas Waterman only made contributions to RINO Jim Leach.

Although, none of the candidates have the purchasing power of the nearly $40,000 given by Justice Brent Appel.

Judgmental

The Ragisters Opium section, oops Opinion section has an editorial about the selection of judges in Iowa.

They state...







Iowa's procedure for appointing judges is usually noncontroversial...

That may be do to the fact that most people don't pay attention to, or even vote on, judges.

The Big Lug Nut gets to appoint a new judge to the Iowa Court of Appeals.

Richard Doyle, Amanda Pierce Potterfield or Janece Valentine will get the nod from the goober.

In March, I predicted Culver would place David Baker on the Iowa Supreme Court.

I based that guess on the fact that Baker gave more money to Dummycrats than the other two candidates.

In April, Culver made my prediction come true and the scientific community is united in that fact.

With that in mind, I think Janece Valentine will be his appointee.

Valentine, of Fort Dodge, has given Dummycrat CONgressman Bruce Braley $5,000 from 2005-2007.

Minor consideration was given to the belief The Big Lug Nut will feel pressured to choose a woman.

Final Judgment?

The public has been lead to believe that there was no other course for the Iowa Supreme Court to take in their 2009 gay marriage ruling.

Onetime Justice Michael Streit was the latest to mouth that mantra with

“We didn’t take the law into our own hands,” Streit said. “The court had a duty to interpret the constitution and uphold the law. I don’t feel we did anything wrong. We had no politics involved.”

I noted last week (American Idiot), the court didn't even have to take the case and lo and behold this case shows I was correct.

Iowa Supreme Court declines to hear Creston police rape case

Another option the Supreme Court had was to refer the case to the Court of Appeals.

This certainly gives credence to those that believe the justices to be activists and the scientific community is united in that fact.

As long as I've mentioned the Supreme Court and Justices, I wonder why the concern now about who potential justices make political contributions to?

High court nominee Waterman was Branstad campaign donor

I don't recall such media scrutiny, only I and a few other bloggers remarked on it, when The Pickle or the Big Lug Nut made their choices of Brent Appel and David Baker during the previous 12 years.

























Probably a D and R thing.

Courageous?

Numerous accolades cite the unanimous opinion of the 7 member Iowa Supreme Court in their gay marriage ruling.

Only three justices, Marhsa Ternus, Michael Streit and David Baker, are ever honored.

They're honored for being fired.

Under Criteria and Eligibility for the Profiles in Courage award it states --

Ordinarily, the award will be made to living Americans who are or were elected officials.

Individuals at all levels of government—federal, state and local—are eligible for the award.

Emphasis will be placed on contemporary acts of political courage.

By that criteria all 7 justices could have, and should have, been honored.

The gay marriage ruling was in April of 2009 and the three justices were not retained until November of 2010.

By the speed this modern world operates, that's not contemporary, that's ancient history and the scientific community is united in that fact..

The Editorial Board of the Ragister would have us believe --

Courage is easy in principle but difficult in practice. Especially when your job is on the line.

The justices themselves tell us they knew before they issued the decision that they knew they could lose their jobs over it.

The justices were thinking of an election that was a year and a half away, even though no Supreme Court Justice had ever been removed since the implementation of the 1962 retention system?

These pretentious pontificators were just as stunned as their supporters that they were canned.

Courage?

Courage is more than a word that Dan Rather used to sign off with and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Courage is also more than a hokey political award based on a book that John F. Kennedy didn't write, which won a Pulitzer, though it wasn't among the books recommended to the Pulitzer committee by its judges.

Marhsa Ternus, Michael Streit and David Baker are whiners, err winners of the 2012 John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage award for their part in the Iowa Supreme Court's decision legalizing gay marriage.

These justices like to tell you that they chose not to campaign to retain their seats, but that's not completely accurrate.

The Iowa Judicial Branch website authored a Iowa Voters Judicial Directory that contained their biographies, career andprofessional and community activities, as well asconsiderations that voters may want to take into account whendeciding whether to retain a justice or judge.

While not a proactive campaign, this use of taxpayer funds was campaigning.

Asleep at the Wheel?

From The Washington Times Inside Politics column....

"Asked by a reporter about how 'President Bush today blamed the surge of violence in Iraq on al Qaeda,' incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded with a disjointed answer about how 'the 9/11 commission dismissed that notion a long time ago, and I feel sad that the president is resorting to it again,' " the Media Research Center's Brent Baker reports at www.mrc.org.

"Though al-Qaeda is clearly in Iraq and responsible for deadly bombings, and the 9/11 commission conclusion was about links before September 11, on Tuesday's 'NBC Nightly News' reporter David Gregory treated Pelosi's off-base retort as credible and relevant.

Without suggesting any miscue by her, Gregory segued to Pelosi's sound bite with a bewildering set up of his own about how incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi disagreed, warning that such rhetoric about al Qaeda will make it harder for Democrats to work with the White House.

"On [Fox News Channel's] 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' after panelist Mara Liasson characterized Pelosi as 'confused' and Morton Kondrake suggested she was just 'mixed up,' Fred Barnes maintained that 'she clearly screwed up here.' ...

"Barnes argued the media wouldn't let a Republican get away with such a flub, telling Kondrake: 'If some Republican had done this, if Bush had done this at a press conference, if Newt Gingrich had said it, if John Boehner had said it, if Roy Blunt had said it, you'd have been all over it. It would be inexcusable.'

"Neither ABC's 'World News Tonight' or 'The CBS Evening News' played the Pelosi sound bite."

SURPRISE! SURPRISE! SURPRISE!

SanFranNan Pa-LOSER is off to a rousing start.

I can't wait to see how smooth her first 100 hours as Speaker will be.

*****UPDATE*****

The Dummycrats are already backing away from a key election promise!

Here's what the Washington Post is reporting....

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.

....aides on the House and Senate appropriations, armed services and intelligence committees confirmed this week that a reorganization of Congress would not be part of the package of homeland-security changes up for passage in the "first 100 hours" of the Democratic Congress.

The 9/11 Commission was unequivocal about the need.

"Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important," the panel wrote. "So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need."

Sufferin' Succotash Sylvester score another swing and a miss for Pa-LOSER!