Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Most disturbing results of election 2010

By Ruth Marcus

In one of Tuesday's most disturbing election results, the losing candidates didn't even have opponents.

Three justices of the Iowa Supreme Court lost what is ordinarily a pro forma election to retain their seats. Not coincidentally, these justices were part of last year's unanimous ruling to strike down a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Outside groups opposed to same-sex marriage, including the National Organization for Marriage and the American Family Association, poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into television ads and other efforts to deny them a new term.

"Activist judges on Iowa's Supreme Court have become political, ignoring the will of voters and imposing same-sex marriage on Iowa," said one commercial. "Liberal, out-of-control judges ignoring our traditional values and legislating from the bench.... Send them a message. Vote no on retention of Supreme Court justices."

Well, message sent -- and that is the problem. The Iowa vote is part of a larger phenomenon of the increasing politicization of judicial elections: more money, more attack ads, more intervention by outside groups, from trial lawyers to business interests.

This is an unavoidable result of states' decisions to give voters a say in judicial selection, whether through direct election of judges or retention votes. In 22 states, judges on the highest state court are chosen through elections and then either stand for re-election or face retention votes.

In another 16 states, high court judges are chosen in some other way, but voters weigh in on keeping them. Some of the most prominent champions of judicial independence, including retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, have pointed to this approach -- merit selection coupled with retention election -- as a model for insulating the judiciary for undue political influence.

But the 2010 campaign illustrates the downside of judicial accountability and the threat of growing politicization of retention elections. In Illinois, where Supreme Court justices are chosen through elections and then subject to a retention vote, the decision about whether to keep incumbent Chief Justice Thomas Kilbride turned into a multimillion-dollar battle in the wake of Kilbride's vote to overturn a state law limiting damages in medical malpractice suits. Kilbride won.

You might look at the Iowa results as a reasonable illustration of accountability in action. After all, what's the point of building in accountability unless you're willing to let voters hold judges accountable? But there is also a difference between giving voters the opportunity to remove judges who behave in inappropriate or unethical ways and letting retention elections turn into referendums on unpopular rulings. The courts may follow the election returns, but I don't want judges making rulings with an eye on their own electoral fortunes.

I happen to agree with the Iowa court's same-sex marriage decision, but I hope I'd feel the same way if the court had ruled in the opposite direction and gay rights groups fought to remove them. I vehemently disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court's campaign finance ruling in the Citizens United case, but those who suggest the impeachment of Chief Justice John Roberts for that decision are even more off-base than the critics of the Iowa justices. Oregon Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio told The Huffington Post that he was "investigating articles of impeachment against Justice Roberts for perjuring during his Senate hearings, where he said he wouldn't be a judicial activist." DeFazio can't be serious.

There is an inherent tension between independence and accountability. When it comes to the judges -- and when judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder -- the system needs to be rigged, as the founders wisely did, in favor of independence.

By Ruth Marcus  | November 4, 2010; 2:56 PM ET
Categories:  Marcus  | Tags:  Ruth Marcus  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: GOP: Gay Old Party? More gays voted Republican than in 2008
Next: Ed Gillespie: hero of the 2010 elections

Comments

The article brings up points on both sides of the issue that are valid. This is a good reason to have term limits for every government office, state and local, including the judiciary. Oh, and no more lifetime appointments to the supreme court!

Posted by: AmericanGirl48 | November 4, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Voting was easy for me this year.

1. Vote for all Democrats.
2. Vote for all taxes.
3. Vote to reconfirm all judges.
4. Vote against all amendments to the State Constitution.

In blessed Colorado, the majority felt the same way I did, and we escaped further degradation of our schools, the politicization of the Judiciary, the gutting of our state's ability to provide services for its residents, and having to be governed by the Tea Party.

So sorry Iowa isn't similarly enlightened.

Posted by: martimr1 | November 4, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and no more lifetime appointments to the supreme court!

Posted by: AmericanGirl48 | November 4, 2010 4:30 PM

********************************************
However, placing term limits on Supreme Court justices would require a constitutional amendment. How about a minimum age requirement of 60 for Supreme Court justices. Given the history of most justices, that would still amount to at least a 20 year term.

Posted by: daubry | November 4, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

when George Soros 'donated' $35 Million dollars to democratic organizations not
a single story in any of the national newpapers.

find yourself some minority women and push your goofy 'gotcha' rich people are evil bs, as you fund your liberal agenda with tainted inside trader convict dollars.

'i voted democrat and I voted no to all constitutional amendments, it was so easy i could leave my medicated brain at home'

Posted by: simonsays1 | November 4, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Voting was easy for me this year.

1. Vote for all Democrats.
2. Vote against all taxes.
3. Vote against all amendments to the State Constitution.

And by the way, don't blame liberals for Republican Judges trying to deprive voters of the right to declare marriage is between a man and a woman, because everybody knows all homosexuals are Republicans.

We liberals voted against same sex marriage here in California, and the Republican homosexuals had the voters disenfranchised, like they disenfranchized voters in Florida so that they could deny Al Gore the White House.

I don't know why Republican homosexuals like to deny their sexuality, but the least they could do is stop blaming the Democrats.

Posted by: lindalovejones | November 4, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

AmericanGirl48; daubry; all,

BOTH of you are correct.

we SHOULD amend the Constitution to LIMIT all judges in the federal system to EIGHT YEARS total for a lifetime
AND
require them to be appointed by the POTUS & confirmed by a 2/3 majority by BOTH houses of Congress
OR
elect all judges to ONE 8-year term.
(we TEA PARTIERS would prefer that ALL appointed/elected federal officials be limited to EIGHT YEARS total in a lifetime AND that the VOTERS would set their salaries/staff levels/expenses/pensions, for the officials from their state.)

the current system is a horrid MESS that must be fixed. = the founders of this republic NEVER intended that the judicial branch would be SUPERIOR to the other two branches of government
OR
even "the senior partner". ===> FACT!

note to all: "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. period. end of story.

just my opinion.

yours, TN46
coordinator, CCTPP

Posted by: texasnative46 | November 4, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

"Downside of judicial accountability," Ms. Marcus????

What part of accountability don't you understand?

Oh.... it's the part that says that the elitist is not to be held accountable.

Now I understand where you are coming from.

Suggestion: Go back and start over! You're out of touch with democracy.

Posted by: Crmudgeon | November 4, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

simonsays is typical, identify those you hate and throw out names (Obama/Reid/Pelosi/Frank)tier #1 Soros/hollywood liberals/minorities/gays/hispanics)tier #2). Didn't hear you complain about The Koch(coke)brothers, big oil big farma, big insurance. While your likeminded supporters blow smoke,so please stop hollering about soros unless you talk about the kochs.

Posted by: jestindam | November 4, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

So conservative voters tossed out three activist liberal judges... and a liberal columnist is upset ?

Who would have guessed ?

Posted by: pvilso24 | November 4, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

It may be "disturbing" to you, but not me and many other strict constructionists who disapprove of judges legislating from the bench. James Madison quickly recognized the potential TYRANNY of an unelected and unchecked judiciary:

"[R]efusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character... makes the Judiciary department paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended and can never be proper."

The Founders also understood that under a broad judicial review, the Judiciary might become policy-makers, which was something they explicitly forbade but has been ignored by liberals ever since. As signer of the Constitution Rufus King rightly warned, "the judges must interpret the laws; they ought not to be legislators." similarly declared that the Judiciary was forbidden to "substitute [its] own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the Legislature."

Alexander Hamilton confirmed this in Federalist #81:

"[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution."

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa81.htm

P.S. I don't love "results oriented judges" that I agree with either (for instance, I was against the U.S. Supreme Court deciding Bush v. Gore ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 4, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

What a classic liberal commentary:"But there is also a difference between giving voters the opportunity to remove judges who behave in inappropriate or unethical ways and letting retention elections turn into referendums on unpopular rulings."

I can honestly say I have Barrack Obama to thank for exposing the malignancy and arrogance of the self-appointed ministers of social justice, ie: the Democratic party, and it's sycophants in the Professional Left.

Posted by: thomas777 | November 4, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

A argument could be made for Judicial restraint. My theory is one peanut is never enough.

Posted by: almorganiv | November 4, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Marcus - Just too bad that tired old journalists like yourself and other talking heads in the mass media, who are out of touch with the populace, aren't given the heave-ho by the electorate the same way they replace their representatives in Congress.

Posted by: shangps | November 4, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Texasnative48 says:
we SHOULD amend the Constitution to LIMIT all judges in the federal system to EIGHT YEARS total for a lifetime
AND
require them to be appointed by the POTUS & confirmed by a 2/3 majority by BOTH houses of Congress.

* * *

But there are too many vacant judges positions RIGHT NOW because judges are blocked by one side or another! I suppose that when the tea party gets into power, there will be NO judges appointed... and we will have to resort to lynch law. That way, at least, the people (rather than the elites) will have the power!

Posted by: michael_chaplan | November 5, 2010 5:32 AM | Report abuse

Someone objected to the U.S. Supreme Court deciding the 2000 election? Perhaps the writer prefers the Florida Supreme Court. In actuality, the people who did not make a politically biased decision were a black female county judge (female), and a white male county judge, both of whom were clearly aware that they had the eyes of history upon them. Both wrote carefully reasoned decisions, buttressed by impeccable scholarship. Both decided in favour of Bush, and the Gore camp refused to concede, so the matter went to the politically biased Florida Supreme Court which decided for Gore, and since the Bush camp would not accept that, it wound up in the politically biased U.S. Supreme Court. Recounts conducted by news organisations supported the Bush win in Florida. Bush bashers refused to accept that, and probably still don't, much as "the birthers" do not accept Obama's legitimacy. Both parties have their crazed rabid elements.

Posted by: sailhardy | November 5, 2010 7:10 AM | Report abuse

You've got to the sheer chutzpah of an ad that claims the justices "imposed same sex marriage" on the state. Really. So all the straight couples were now going to have to divorce and find gay partners to wed?

Posted by: MidwaySailor76 | November 5, 2010 7:56 AM | Report abuse

You've got to love the sheer chutzpah of an ad that claims the justices "imposed same sex marriage" on the state. Really. So all the straight couples were now going to have to divorce and find gay partners to wed?

Posted by: MidwaySailor76 | November 5, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse

My fellow Iowans who voted against judicial retention were ignorant of the Varnum vs Brien case and constitutional law in general. They cared nothing for equal protection under the law and were shamelessly influenced by mounds of out-of-state money from religious (I won't call them christians) groups meddling in our election.

Posted by: akyngcls | November 5, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

michael_chaplan; all,

in the event that it took 2/3 of both houses to confirm judges, perhaps BOTH parties would have to start cooperating (instead of fighting)
OR
we could dump all of the morons in the Congress & start over with a "new crop"
OR
we could (my preference) start electing judges to ONE 8-year term.

it comes down to this: what we have now is a MESS that MUST be fixed.

just my opinion.

yours, TN46
coordinator, CCTPP

Posted by: texasnative46 | November 5, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

You're bending the facts to support your opinion, Ms. Marcus. Those judges were not impeached; they were dismissed by democratic election according to normal state law and procedure that value democracy and the will of the people. Your attitude, Ms. Marcus, is typical of the progressive intelligentsia who believe the people are basically ignorant and wrongheaded, and must be kept in line and herded toward a "better" way of life dictated by "those who know better."

Posted by: Gradivus | November 5, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

I believe I'm right in recalling that Ms. Marcus is a graduate of Harvard Law School. There she would have learned many times over that judges make law as surely as legislators do.

Why shouldn't they be subject to the same sort of policy accountability as legislators?

Posted by: hambya | November 5, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

What's discouraging to me is that so many state elections are influenced by organizations/companies/money from outside that state. I think the campaign finance laws should be changed so that those running for state offices could accept funds only from those who actually live in their state.

Posted by: addledalto | November 5, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

What's discouraging to me is that so many state elections are influenced by organizations/companies/money from outside that state. I think the campaign finance laws should be changed so that those running for state offices could accept funds only from those who actually live in their state.

Posted by: addledalto | November 5, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Well, although I agree with Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who champions merit selection coupled with retention election, (as a model for insulating the judiciary for *undue* political influence) I don't agree with Ruth Marcus at all. The concept that the Judiciary should be *insulated* from the political landscape is good, but Ruth takes Sandra's idea one step too far and advocates total *isolation* from the political landscape. That is *not* reasonable, since it is obvious that to some extent many/most judges bring political alignment and ideas, that they should not, to the benches with them.

One can not help but wonder if the motivation of the author itself is political, although not something we expect to see admitted, especially since it was glibly addressed and denied. If it were not so, the reason cited here (Not coincidentally, these justices were part of last year's unanimous ruling to strike down a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.) would be totally non sequitur and needlessly speculative.

I would say that to *reduce* politicization of the Judiciary, that *all* Judges should be appointed, as Sandra Day O'Connor would argue, and furthermore, to insulate the politicization of the *merit* characteristic, (which should be politically neutral and without an agenda of *any* sort) that a Supermajority ratification by some legislative body would be required. At the same time, although I agree that in some cases a judge may be removed that has done nothing unethical or inappropriate, but only judged in an unpopular way, I think that is a price that judges *should* be willing to pay, knowingly going against public sentiment to do the right thing. To ease such votes for retention would allow just what they are intended to avoid, corrupt and unethical judges or those who do not rule with blind servitude to justice, even when it goes against their own political predispositions.

I would go so far as to say that I would agree to a Constitutional Amendment that made *all* judges subject to some long term limit, say 12 years, that *could* be renewed by reconfirmation of their appointment, unless they are actively elected in shorter terms. To say that politics does not take place on the bench is ludicrous. The author wants to minimize this, and I think *that* is a worse problem than judges being influenced by public opinions on the rulings. Honestly, if they are *so* worried about losing their job, with the power or prestige or whatever it is the motivates them to keep it at all costs, to the point that it drives them more than serving justice, and being willing to pay the price of losing that job for an unpopular ruling, I don't think they are *worthy* of sitting on the bench to begin with!

;'{P~~~

Posted by: Clearbrook | November 5, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

While I strongly disagree with the motives, of the specific Iowa vote, I see a point to the issue of the public being able to get rid of judges who make extremely unpopular decisions.

I read Justice O'Conner's editorial (in a policy journal) regarding election of judges and while I see her points, she seems seems quite arrogant and dismissive of the opinions and interests of the people.

Posted by: montestruc | November 5, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

I think the suggestion was made that Roberts be impeached because that decision had so little to do with interpreting the law and so much to do with political, philosophical bias. I, too, am for the Iowa Supreme Court decision regarding equal protection under the law, i.e. the rights of all consenting adults to marry.

Posted by: JenW73 | November 5, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

To claim that those who voted against these judges did so because the issues were politicized is short sighted and wrong. Why not assume the voters made this choice because the judges violated their oath of office and did not uphold the state constitution? They disqualified themselves when they made the decision to legislate from the bench and the voters did the right thing to remove them. I would hope that if they legislated some conservative issue they would have been removed just as decisively. It is time to get back to constitutional government and this is a legitimate way our founding fathers established to curtail judicial activism. I hope the new US Congress will use their power to weed out the judicial activists in the federal judiciary as well.

Posted by: neilsandford2 | November 5, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

The people of Iowa are extremely ignorant of the Constitution. Our national constitution says equality for all, and that's one of the things our nation was founded on. They removed the justices for merely following our national constitution. If Iowa doesn't like equality, iran ==> Iran gives a 2 sh1ts about equality.

These same people would have ousted the judges 40-50 years ago for being "judicial activists" The judges during that time made unpopular decisions, such as legalizing interracial marriage, which 70% of Americans were opposed to during that time period. And we can forget Brown v the Board of education.

Those of you screaming judicial activism, remember that if it wasn't for this "activism", black people would still be sitting in the back of the bus, and interracial marriage would easily still be outlawed.

You are putting effort into something that will become the norm 20-30 years from now, when the 18-30 group take over. Most of us younger people support gay marriage, and see gay people as normal as straight people. We aren't brainwashed by ignorance or fear of different people. And we certainly are far less brainwashed by religion.

Posted by: shadow_man | November 6, 2010 12:19 AM | Report abuse


Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

Posted by: shadow_man | November 6, 2010 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.


And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

Posted by: shadow_man | November 6, 2010 12:31 AM | Report abuse

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

Posted by: shadow_man | November 6, 2010 12:32 AM | Report abuse

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

Posted by: shadow_man | November 6, 2010 12:40 AM | Report abuse

You know what's scary are people like the author of this story. I live in Iowa and know for a fact that we all wanted those judges gone. They went against the will of the people and they paid for it. I can't wait for 2012 so we can take back our country!

Posted by: SoulSeekerUSA | November 6, 2010 2:05 AM | Report abuse

Ruth Marcus laments the fact that three Iowa Supreme Court Judges were voted out of office because they “were part of last year's unanimous ruling to strike down a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.”
Ruth Marcus is a bleeding heart liberal (female and Jewish, duh!) bent on demonstrating that she is more compassionate then the American majority, which she views as racist, sexist, homophobic, troglodytes. She competes in the compassion competition engaged in by the lame-stream media and the academy. It is radical non-judgmentalism.
Let’s review some of the nutty, utopian causes that the radical compassionists have brought us: school busing, global warming crusade, affirmative action (discriminating against white guys), gay pride (oxymoron), gay marriage (oxymoron), refusal to shut down the gay bath houses in the 80s that were petri dishes for the spread of AIDS that was killing thousands, the lie that AIDS is just as common in heterosexuals in the West, women in combat, explosion of homeless in 80s was due to Reagan’s housing policies, Socialism & Communism (they didn’t come from the right), self esteem movement to help young blacks, attempt to eliminate grades because low grades hurt self esteem, attempt to eliminate SAT for college admissions because of low black scores, mass legal and illegal immigration from the Third World, etc., etc., etc.
Remember, to succeed in the lame-stream media or the academy today, you have to prove you have more radical compassion for nutty causes than the next guy.

Posted by: tom_sheerin | November 6, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Ruth Marcus laments the fact that three Iowa Supreme Court Judges were voted out of office because they “were part of last year's unanimous ruling to strike down a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.”
Ruth Marcus is a bleeding heart liberal (female and Jewish, duh!) bent on demonstrating that she is more compassionate then the American majority, which she views as racist, sexist, homophobic, troglodytes. She competes in the compassion competition engaged in by the lame-stream media and the academy. It is radical non-judgmentalism.
Let’s review some of the nutty, utopian causes that the radical compassionists have brought us: school busing, global warming crusade, affirmative action (discriminating against white guys), gay pride (oxymoron), gay marriage (oxymoron), refusal to shut down the gay bath houses in the 80s that were petri dishes for the spread of AIDS that was killing thousands, the lie that AIDS is just as common in heterosexuals in the West, women in combat, explosion of homeless in 80s was due to Reagan’s housing policies, Socialism & Communism (they didn’t come from the right), self esteem movement to help young blacks, attempt to eliminate grades because low grades hurt self esteem, attempt to eliminate SAT for college admissions because of low black scores, mass legal and illegal immigration from the Third World, etc., etc., etc.
Remember, to succeed in the lame-stream media or the academy today, you have to prove you have more radical compassion for nutty causes than the next guy.

Posted by: tom_sheerin | November 6, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Ruth Marcus laments the fact that three Iowa Supreme Court Judges were voted out of office because they “were part of last year's unanimous ruling to strike down a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.”
Ruth Marcus is a bleeding heart liberal (female and Jewish, duh!) bent on demonstrating that she is more compassionate then the American majority, which she views as racist, sexist, homophobic, troglodytes. She competes in the compassion competition engaged in by the lame-stream media and the academy. It is radical non-judgmentalism.
Let’s review some of the nutty, utopian causes that the radical compassionists have brought us: school busing, global warming crusade, affirmative action (discriminating against white guys), gay pride (oxymoron), gay marriage (oxymoron), refusal to shut down the gay bath houses in the 80s that were petri dishes for the spread of AIDS that was killing thousands, the lie that AIDS is just as common in heterosexuals in the West, women in combat, explosion of homeless in 80s was due to Reagan’s housing policies, Socialism & Communism (they didn’t come from the right), self esteem movement to help young blacks, attempt to eliminate grades because low grades hurt self esteem, attempt to eliminate SAT for college admissions because of low black scores, mass legal and illegal immigration from the Third World, etc., etc., etc.
Remember, to succeed in the lame-stream media or the academy today, you have to prove you have more radical compassion for nutty causes than the next guy.

Posted by: tom_sheerin | November 6, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

I made 3 posts by mistake on the same comment. Ignore the last 2 and hopefully the editors will remove them.

Posted by: tom_sheerin | November 6, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

martimr1 stated,

Voting was easy for me this year.

1. Vote for all Democrats.
2. Vote for all taxes.
3. Vote to reconfirm all judges.
4. Vote against all amendments to the State Constitution.

In blessed Colorado, the majority felt the same way I did, and we escaped further degradation of our schools, the politicization of the Judiciary, the gutting of our state's ability to provide services for its residents, and having to be governed by the Tea Party.

So sorry Iowa isn't similarly enlightened.


Posted by: martimr1 | November 4, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

martimr1:

As a Colorado Resident I voted against the Tea Partyers and nutcakes on my ballot. I didn't intentionally vote straight Demo but after the completion of my research it equated to the same thing.

If only more people in the election nationally as a whole voted as the majority in Colorado did.

I am hoping for a better overall 2012; that those who didn't vote this time wake up and become "enightened" in 2012 and vote for the those who care about this Nation and not their own power and deep pockets.

Posted by: eashley12 | November 8, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company