Iowa Supreme Court Judicial Retention: College Papers Weigh In

Iowa Supreme Court Building

Iowa State Daily, Ames, Iowa
By ISD Editorial Board (full editorial here)

Well, that was just fantastic, wasn't it?
     It's not that we didn't see the Republican takeover coming from a mile away — we did.
     ...It'll be interesting to see how Obama handles the next two lame-duck years.
     Back home, we're inclined to think the people who sat on the Supreme Court were doing a fantastic job, but what the hell, let's throw ‘em out. Who's the governor who nominated those "clowns"?
     Oh, right, he's back in office. That's awesome. I guess this means he'll know a few people looking for those kind of jobs — over-qualified folks politicked right out of their well-deserved positions. Because people think "the gays" are "icky."
     We would like to see Culver go ahead and get on the fast-track with a judicial nominating committee and put some quality folks back into the positions, or even just re-appoint the judges — Strait and Turnus were appointed back in the day by Branstad.
     There are people who are ashamed to live in this state right now.
     The funny thing about the other day was that the folks who hopped on their Rascal power scooters and made it to the polls — in droves, mind you — probably didn't understand that their votes weren't keeping Iowa from becoming the "gay marriage Mecca" social conservatives sensationalize it to be.
     Have you been outside? Do you think people really want to come here at this time of year? Even the farmers leave.

Daily Nebraskan, University of Nebraska at Lincoln, Tom Bolin (full editorial here)

     A judge is not a politician. Depending on the circumstances, a judge can be elected, appointed or retained by vote in a general election like many other public officials, but they are not politicians. Bob Vander Plaats does not understand this.

     ...The impartial judiciary is at the core of the American democracy. No matter the abuses of the executive or legislative branches, the judiciary can nullify the actions of the other branches with the stroke of a pen. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, granting habeas corpus to U.S. citizens categorized as enemy combatants, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, striking down military tribunals as a means for trying the detainees at Guantanamo are recent examples of courts (specifically the Supreme Court) upholding democratic ideals in opposition of the president and Congress.
     ...Rachel Caulfield, a Drake University professor, said of the Missouri Plan:"The system was not designed so that people could reject one vote or one case, it was designed so that people could get rid of unfit judges. It was meant as an extreme measure. The system has worked well — until now."
     ...In 1932, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis put forth the idea that the states were "laboratories of democracy." The idea was that different states could try different solutions to problems. Iowa has been using the Missouri Plan for 50 years with no negative results. Through their efforts, Mr. Vander Plaats and his cohorts have soured the experiment.

 The University Daily Kansan, University of Kansas, Kelly Cosby (full editorial here)

The election outcome in Iowa a week ago, concluding in the removal of three state Supreme Court justices, is disturbing for two reasons: it undermines the state’s judicial system and it reinforces the very mind set that encourages bullying LGBT students in school.
     The vote to remove the justices came after a conservative campaign under the guise of eradicating “activist judges.” The campaign based this assessment on the court’s unanimous vote to strike down a state law that outlawed same-sex marriage.
     The reason why United States Supreme Court justices can only be removed by impeachment is to prevent their decisions from being affected by politics.
     Unfortunately, these judges did not have the same protection.
     ...Members of the national community cannot lobby against equal rights for LGBT citizens and then be shocked when schoolchildren bully their gay classmates. Teaching kids that certain people don’t belong and don’t deserve all their rights as citizens gives them ammunition and encourages discrimination.

COMMENTS

Would you please tell what equal right was violated? Gay people can get married under the definition of what marriage is currently; one man and one woman. So gay people are not denied anything. What you are describing are special rights that only apply to gay people.
I would think that defining marriage would be better off decided by a vote of the people rather than some selected judges. That's right! In some 30 something states the people have decided.
—Calvin

Calvin, you miss the point and keep on going. As long as two adults do not have the right to marry, they do not have equal rights. Anti-gay marriage referendums like the ones you refer to are discrimination on an institutional level, and just because they are popular in some places does not make them superior or right in any way.
— thatonedude 

Calvin, your stunningly ridiculous notion that because gay people can legally marry members of the opposite sex, they "are not denied anything" reminds me of what Anatole France once sarcastically wrote:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread..."

—Enzo