Judgement Day

Statewide there are 78 judges seeking another term.

3 on the Court of Appeals and 75 at the District Court level. These Judges serve 6 year terms.

There are no Judges up for retention on the Supreme Court. These Judges serve 8 year terms.

The Iowa State Bar Association released its ratings on Judges on the ballot for retention. The ISBA and the Judicial Branch of Iowa promote this as an evaluation of Judges for the voters.

This years evaluation is based on 2,240 survey forms completed by members of the ISBA. I have asked the ISBA how many total members they have and have yet to receive a response.

The ISBA members who responded ranked Judges on a scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) on 10 questions. The 11th was if the Judge should be retained.

1) Knowledge and application of the law
2) Perception of factual issues
3) Attentiveness to arguments and testimony
4) Temperament and demeanor
5) Clarity and quality of written opinions
6) Promptness of rulings and decisions
7) Avoids undue personal observations or criticisms of litigants, judges and lawyers from bench or in written opinions
8) Decides cases on basis of applicable law and fact, not affected by outside influence
9) Is courteous and patient with litigants, lawyers and court personnel
10) Treats people equally regardless of race, gender, age, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, socio-economic status or disability
11) Retention

At the Court of Appeals level John C. Miller received 96% on the question of retention, Anuradha Vaitheswaran received 95% and Van D. Zimmer 97%.

What I find interesting is that only 162 responded to the retention question for Miller, 191 for Vaitheswaran and 207 for Zimmer.

In my 5a District; Darrell Goodhue received 98% for retention, Peter A. Keller 95%, Richard Clogg, 96%, Virginia Cobb 93%, Thomas W. Mott 73% and Kevin A. Parker 100%.

The number of repsondents to the retention question for Goodhue 124, Keller, 110, Clogg 51, Cobb 42, Mott 63 and Parker 36.

The Ragister ran the press release, regarding this survey, with the headline "Bar association gives high marks to judges".

They need to put in a few minutes work and give the whole story!

As for me, I go with the advice my Dad gave me about voting....Vote NO on all the Judges.


**********UPDATE**********


I did hear back from the ISBA about their membership...

The Iowa State Bar Association is a voluntary Bar Association. Current
membership count for both in and out of state is 8,071.

Mary Hill
Iowa State Bar Association
Membership Director / Foundation Liaison

I've asked her how many in state members there are and have yet to receive a response.

Don't Judge Me

Once again, the elitists of this state don't like having power in the hands of the people.

Iowa Supreme Court Justice Wiggins (sounds like a Carol Burnett sketch and the scientific community is united in that fact) authored a letter campaigning for his job as he bemoaned political campaigning.

Judges in Iowa are allowed to form campaign committees and raise money, but they'd rather do it subtly using state funds for a Iowa Voters Judicial Directory or by traveling the state on the taxpayers nickel.

The Iowa State Bar Association (ISBA) put out a video listing the criteria that voters should look for in a judge or justice.

Lawyers lawyering up for Lawyers.

The ISBA didn't feel a need to educate voters when most voters didn't vote on judges and those judges easily retained the peoples seats.

The issue of money, some out of state, in the judicial campaign process has been raised again.

Incoming Iowa State Bar Association President Guy Cook calls money and politics a “cancer that will kill the system”, yet the ISBA charges a membership fee and has out of state members.

Keep in mind, it's the ISBA who rates judges for retention.

The CEO of a major Iowa employer was critical of outside interests and their spending in Iowa, yet this CEO is okay with his company doing national and international business.

This CEO also lectured Iowans that removing judges on the basis of one decision was not what Iowans intended when they amended the state’s constitution in 1962.

The Iowa Constitution  --

Terms — judicial elections.  SEC. 17.  Members of all courts shall have such tenure in office as may be fixed by law, but terms of supreme court judges shall be not less than eight years and terms of district court judges shall be not less than six years.  Judges shall serve for one year after appointment and until the first day of January following the next judicial election after the expiration of such year.  They shall at such judicial election stand for retention in office on a separate ballot which shall submit the question of whether such judge shall be retained in office for the tenure prescribed for such office and when such tenure is a term of years, on their request, they shall, at the judicial election next before the end of each term, stand again for retention on such ballot.  Present supreme court and district court judges, at the expiration of their respective terms, may be retained in office in like manner for the tenure prescribed for such office.  The general assembly shall prescribe the time for holding judicial elections.

It states they MAY BE RETAINED IN OFFICE, it doesn't say they're guaranteed retention and it doesn't spell out any criteria for voting yes or no.

As I stated two years ago --

For me this has never been about one ruling, I've been voting NO on judges since I first voted in 1976.

Most judges I've encountered come across as pompous asses who believe they are the law, or above the law.

For me it is part of the checks of the system and utilizing the no retention may keep the scales of justice balanced and the judges centered in reality. 

The People's Court

The powers that be are feeling threatened by the power of the people and that is why they don't want you to vote no on the retention of judges.

And the scientific community is united in that fact.

They've made out so well and are so comfortable with the status quo that they don't want you tipping the scales back to balanced.

They want, and need, you to be ignorant and apathetic about voting further down the ballot, or even turning it over.

Since 1962, Iowa voters have voted to remove four judges.

Is it because they're so wonderful?

More likely is that most people have no interaction with the court system.

Iowa Code 602.1218 covers the Judicial Branch and cites Removal For Cause --

Inefficiency, Insubordination, Failure to perform assigned duties, Inadequacy in performance of assigned duties, Narcotics addiction, Dishonesty, Unrehabilitated alcoholism, Negligence, Conduct which adversely affects the performance of the individual or of the judicial branch, Conduct unbecoming a public employee, Misconduct, or any other just and good cause constitutes cause for removal.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that if you disagree with the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage, that is a just and good cause for removal.

The Ragister ran an opinion piece from Dean's and former Dean's of Drake Law School and the U of I College of Law and these legal eagles were less than honest when they wrote --

The retention vote was designed for a very limited purpose, to provide a mechanism to remove a judge who was unfit for office, for example, because of corruption such as bribery, other unlawful conduct, or misconduct.

Here's where I need a Dean scream

Section 46.16 covers Terms Of Judges --

1. Subject to sections 602.1610 (Mandatory retirement) and 602.1612 (Temporary service by retired judges) and to removal of cause.

The people don't have to wait up to eight years to remove a justice for corruption, unlawful conduct or misconduct, that's what Impeachment is for.

602.2201 Impeachment --

Judicial officers may be removed from office by impeachment pursuant to Chapter 68.

Chapter 68 is entitled Impeachment and 68.1 Impeachment Defined --

An impeachment is a written accusation against the governor, or a judicial officer, or other state officer, by the house of representatives before the senate of a misdemeanor or malfeasance in office.

For me this has never been about one ruling, I've been voting NO on judges since I first voted in 1976.

Most judges I've encountered come across as pompous asses who believe they are the law, or above the law.

For me it is part of the checks of the system and utilizing the no retention may keep the scales of justice balanced and the judges centered in reality.

The Sky Is Crying

Showing how arrogant the powers that be are, former Supreme Court justice Mark McCormick made an ass of himself (and the scientific community is united in that fact) at a forum discussing the issue of judicial retention.

McCormick said opponents of retaining the judges have turned “to the mob” rather than the rule of law.

As I've previously opined (The People's Court) it is Iowa Law, specifically section 602.1218 of the Iowa Code, that cites a litany of reasons ending with or any other just and good cause constitutes cause for removal.

McCormick then went pious on the public when he said, “It’s the common tactic of saying the sky is falling when one doesn’t agree with the outcome”, because that is exactly what the proponents of judicial retention are doing with their scare tactics that this vote will change the system and affect court caseloads.

McCormick attacked out of state money for supporting the removal effort, but has been silent on the out of state lawyers and money used to support gay marriage prior to the Iowa Supreme Court's decision, or since.

Another former Supreme Court justice, Robert Allbee, even took a cheap shot when asked whether the retention vote was a referendum on gay marriage, Allbee snarked: “It may just be another referendum on Mr. Vander Plaats. He’s had three already.”

Snark is what I do, not something someone of Albee's station in life should resort to in a public forum.

Let Them Be The Judge

Current Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court, Mark Cady, apparently doesn't like having his work reviewed.

It could be because Cady is the author of the Court's gay marriage decision and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Cady told a gathering in the People's Republic --

"The fear I have, and that is growing in this state, is if we have another election where judges are removed because a decision is unpopular at the time it was made, then we'll have a politicized court system."

Then change the Iowa Constitution to remove retention and have the appointment for life, or remove the no option on the retention ballot.

Irony?

Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justice Mark Cady dissenting in a public policy case as something for lawmakers, not judges, to decide.

Keith Olbermann donating to three Dummycrats campaigns 3 weeks to the day after lambasting Fox News for going beyond having a point of view and actually starts to shill for partisan causes and actually starts to donate to partisan groups of one party.

The Ragister, the ousted Iowa Supreme Court justices, Fair Courts for Us, One Iowa and Drake University Law School Dean Allan Vestal decrying out of state money that opposed retention, but not once complaining about the out of state money that came in from Nebraska, Minnesota, Washington D.C., Missouri, California, South Dakota, Virginia, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Washington, Colorado, Michigan and Illinois in support of retention.

AARP supported Obamacare, now it is raising employee insurance premiums and changing copayments and deductibles to avoid a 40 percent tax on high-cost health plans that takes effect in 2018 under the law.

Elizabeth Matus writing of her love of the state of Iowa and the Midwest and her pride in the University of Iowa and Iowa State, all while attending Stanford University in California.

Constant anti-war protester Christine Gaunt, who proclaims herself a vegan, but raises hogs on a family farm.











And the scientific community is united in that fact.

Tipping The Scales?

It seems unethical that the judges in this state are using state funds for their campaign for re-election.

New directory centers on Iowa judges

Marsha Ternus, with the budget crisis that closes down courthouses, is this a good use of taxpayer dollars?

Iowa Voters Judicial Directory

This directory contains biographies of each the 74 justices and judges on the ballot. These biographies include information about each judge's education, career, and professional and community activities. The directory also contains information about Iowa's judicial retention elections as well as considerations that voters may want to take into account when deciding whether to retain a justice or judge.

The directory helps(?) voters decide what makes a good judge and why they shouldn't be judged on the outcome of one case.

It wouldn't be acceptable for any elected official, from the Governor on down, to blatantly promote their retention on an official web site.

This shouldn't be allowed either and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Relax

The drama queen's who are hyperventilating about the non retention of three Iowa Supreme Court justices is a bit much.

Will justices vote tarnish or help Iowa's image?

As the pro retention vote liked to remind everyone, it doesn't change the court's ruling on gay marriage.

I also enjoy how those so distraught over this vote are appalled that the justice's fate would be decided by one ruling.

These same people couldn't name any other ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court and most were probably not aware that Iowa has a Supreme Court.

And the scientific community is united in that fact.

I'm glad the Ragister ran an opinion piece from an Iowa attorney, Steve Waechter, who had no problem with the judge's ouster...

Vote shows political sophistication of Iowans

The voters of Iowa chose to exercise a check on the judiciary by removing some of its members, which was their right under our law.

The Wall Street Journal weighed in with...

Iowa's Total Recall
Voters give activist judges the boot. Lawyers are shocked

Maybe if judges behaved less like politicians, they'd have less reason to fear recall votes.

Far from a beacon of judicial independence, the three Iowa justices were fired because they put their own political preferences above their commitment to the law. If judges want to avoid recalls, they should leave social legislation to legislators.

Legal Man

The president-elect of the Iowa State Bar Association needs to try and relax his habeas corpus and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Brother of new Supreme Court justice slams retention vote that threw out judges

Robert Waterman made his not so brief remarks amidst the installation ceremony of his brother, Thomas, onto the court.

Not sure if it's sibling rivalry, or just a case of a lawyer being a lawyer, but learn to relax and enjoy the moment.

There was no need to go all corpus delicti.

Both Waterman's have been a part of a firm that's been practicing since 1854.

That's a long time to practice.

Practice?

Bone Us

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have outdone AIG in rewarding bonuses.

$210 million in retention bonuses to employees at the two federally established home mortgage companies that lost more than $100 billion last year.

Well Barney Frank, once again we're "rewarding incompetence".

About AIG, Frank said...

"These bonuses are going to people who screwed this thing up enormously"

And..."maybe its time to fire some people."

I doubt he'll be on the weekend news shows leading that charge and the scientific community is united in that fact.

I'm willing to bet that SEIU and MoveOn.org won't be organizing protest rallies.

Don't wait for ACORN to pay for another field trip.

It's time for Obama's Thief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, to pay back the $320,000 he made off of Freddie Mac.

In Absentia

Chris and I received our absentee ballots and voted present.

Actually we voted for the good guys, and gal, and the scientific community is united in that fact.

The mandatory writing in of my wife and friend Cal comes when I vote a race with no opponent.

As for the retention of judges, I always follow my late father's advice and vote NO!

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.

SCTV

Once again Chris and I Sat Comfortably To Vote (SCTV) as we cast our ballots from the Not So Vast Right Wing Ranch.

That's a clue as to what candidates we bubbled in on our absentee ballots and the scientific community is united in that fact.

As tradition we penned ourselves in for uncontested races, as well as our friend Cal (Freedom's pal).

Despite the warnings from the powers that be, we voted NO on every judge up for retention.

It's what I've been doing since I cast my first vote in 1976 and if we weren't supposed to, it wouldn't be an option.

Bring on the results!

Baloney Again

It purports to be a steak fry, but every year CommieTommie Harkin's event serves baloney again.

And the scientific community is united in that fact.

This year Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley sliced it up and served it thick, even though Attendees said the crowd was a bit thinner than previous years.

O'Malley actually stated, We are the party that grows our economy.

By "economy", O'Malley must be referring to --

An increase of 18 million people, to 46 million Americans now receiving food stamps

A 122% increase in food stamp spending to an estimated $89 billion this year from $40 billion in 2008

An increase of 3.6 million people receiving Social Security disability payments

A 10 million person increase in the number of individuals receiving welfare, to 107 million, or more than one-third of the U.S. population  

Good job Obama, Good job Dummycrats.

Never mind that during President Obama's time in office, Household Income Has Fallen 4.8% and actually fell more in recovery than during recession.

O'Malley continued by crediting President Obama with driving down unemployment levels he inherited from the Bush administration.

Average unemployment, under Bush, was 5.8 percent in 2008 and it has never been below 8 percent during the entire Obama administration, the longest period of sustained high unemployment since the Great Depression.

O'Malley's done such a wonderful job in Maryland --

The Democratic governor of Maryland has seen his term marred by job losses, population flight, and crippling ethical scandals.

Under Governor O’Malley, Maryland has enacted more than 20 fee and tax raises and increased government spending in an effort to revive the economy.

The result has been 30,000 lost jobs since O’Malley’s inauguration in 2007—and 30,000 lost taxpayers, many of whom moved to escape higher taxes.

That's why to Harkin and his istas, O'Malley sounds like a rising star.

O'Malley also said about Republicans, “These guys wouldn’t pass gas if they thought it could help our president accelerate the economy".

Shit, Democrats are so full of it that they want the government to subsidize it.

Dummycrats were also indoctrinated to vote yes on the judges, “There’s some folks here who are trying to use our retention process to scare and intimate Iowa judges and we can’t let that happen”.

Having to be "intimate" with Iowa judges must be a part of the gay marriage ruling that has been overlooked.

The baloney bash included the usual suspects; CONgressmen Bruce Braley, Dave No Sack...err Loebsack and Leonard BOZO-well.

Aspiring CONgressperson Christie Vilsack was there too, as this Des Moines Register photo shows.

That's ASSME President Danny Homan putting the squeeze on Christie, exactly how it will happen if she's elected.

I wonder if she brought a seven layer salad?

The Sky Is Falling

My first thought after seeing this article, Panel to discuss retention vote's effect on judiciary, is that will be a balanced discussion and the scientific community is united in that fact.

The panel will consist of Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins; Drake University Law School Assistant Professor Ian Bartrum; Troy Price, the political director of the state gay rights group One Iowa; and Ben Stone, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa.

Digging a little further you'll find that the sponsor, The American Constitution Society, describes itself as a liberal progressive legal organization.

Can't wait to read the “intellectual capital” that comes from these Turkey Lurkey's.

Two-Way Street?

I can't help but be amused by those indignant over Iowans exercising their right not to retain judges.

Everyone lost in judicial retention election

Gay-rights groups decry justices' ouster

It feels like -- You had the right, but I didn't think you'd use it and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Just as amusing are those who are upset the justices were removed for one issue, yet that one issue is exactly why they voted to retain them.

It's almost as good as their outrage over out-of-state special interests, except for my out-of-state interests (Lambda Legal).

Tolerance needs to be a two-way street.

Practicing What They Preach?

A group known as The Interfaith Alliance of Iowa went around the state yesterday and spread the love.

The group condemned the "influence of an out-of-state extremist group who is playing havoc with Iowa’s retention election."

That's odd, because the Iowa group is one of 17 affiliates of The Interfaith Alliance based out of Washington D.C. and the scientific community is united in that fact.

I certainly don't recall the same statewide effort and concern regarding the out of state groups that came into Iowa with their lawyers and money to support gay marriage prior to the Iowa Supreme Court's decision, or since.

These enlightened leaders asked, "If someone believes differently than you, should you hate them? Should you fear them?”

They then went on to state “I have a growing fear and unease with the Vander Plaats campaign. I personally fear the impact of this out-of-state group on our voters. I also have a fear that our fair and impartial courts will be maligned by this campaign.”

HUH?

WHAT?