Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #1 

__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #2 

I am voting NO for the Iowa Supreme Court Justices up for retention, will you?


The Court has ruled that Varnum v. Brien does not apply to parental rights. So "Strict Scrutiny" applies to marriage but not separation from marriage or to our ability to parent our children post separation?

That my friends, is the very definition of Judicial Activism!!!

Please Vote NO for the Iowa Supreme Court Justices!!!



__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
scooterrn

Member
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #3 
Absolutely and this doesn't go far enough.  It starts with the district court.  None of the district 5a judges are worth keeping.  Most come into the court room with preconceived idea of who's right and who's wrong. They ignore evidence that is presented over "sworn" testimony (because no one ever lied under oath), and ignore other judges orders.  They will find a way that is least intrusive on the party they feel is right, regardless of what the Iowa code states and protect the abusive parties over the abused parties. 

These judges even go so far as to order marriage counseling as part of a divorce processing even in the face of an existing no contact order. 

I've seen them suspend visitation for one child with an abusive parent who has cause great psychological harm and in the same proceeding, order the sibling to spend 5 wks with that same parent with little contacted (other than a 45 min phone call) with the primary custodial parent.  This after cutting off the testimony of the primary custodial parent (at 3:00 pm, must have had something more important to do than his job).

These judges have a lifetime position under the current process for retaining judges, because the good citizens of Iowa generally don't know what is happening in these courts and are not making a fair and knowledgeable vote on retaining judges.  There really isn't anyway for them to make that vote properly.  There is no way for Iowans to know what truly is happening in the courtroom.  there is no Judicial accountability and if you inquire with the A.G.'s office as to filing a complaint against a judge, you will be told that it is your right to do so, but it will make it harder for you in future court proceedings. 

What wonderful checks and balances we have so that one branch of government can not hold too much power.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely!
Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #4 
I found some signes that pretty much sum up why I'm voting NO to retain all judges
http://www.acfc.org/site/DocServer/ACFC_protest_signs.pdf?docID=2781

__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
BBW

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 357
Reply with quote  #5 
IT IS NOT A GAY ISSUE..... IT IS A JUDGE ISSUE! PERIOD!

__________________
The amount of success you have in solving a problem is directly proportional to the amount of constructive energy you put into solving it.
DSMDad

Member
Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #6 

I am doing some last minute research before I vote tomorrow and the parential right issue is a key issue in my decision making process.  Based on the above it appears I should vote no to all judges, however I would hate to say no to a candidate/judge that supports our cause.  Any insights would be appreciated for those that follow the political and courts more than I do.  Thanks in advance for any insights. 

Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #7 

Your pretty safe in voting no down the line.


__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
FatherX

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 60
Reply with quote  #8 
Whether or not my about WHO TV 13's recent story made it before the eyes of  "Your Honor" Judge Hansen in Polk County, I do not know.

However, as I promised in my blog, I voted No to his retention by no mistake. Additionally, I my votes reflected my concern for the children in this state and a nod to responsible parenting! Yes "Your Honor Justice Ternus" responsible parenting, that means not allowing things to occur that bad for children say like a..."TEENAGE DRINKING PARTY". I seem to recall there are laws somewhere prohibiting such things, I don't believe that you are except from the law.

 I am hoping others will support my position and I hope this is message to all Judges in this state....


__________________
My hope is in God...Spes mea in Deo

How am I going to live today in order to create the tomorrow I'm committed to?

I challenge you to make your life a masterpiece. I challenge you to join the ranks of those people who live what they teach, who walk their talk.
Tony Robbins

Children are a heritage from God

I am a Dad, I am not disposable.

I love my kids more than the Iowa Courts do!
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #9 
I did my part and Voted NO on ALL judges!!!

__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #10 

Let Iowa judicial reform begin...thanks to all who voted not to retain these justices.

All three Iowa Supreme Court justices up for retention election have been ousted from the bench. Around 54 percent of Iowans voted not to retain each of the three judges: Supreme Court Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and associate justices Michael J. Streit and David L. Baker.

http://iowaindependent.com/46917/iowans-vote-to-oust-all-three-supreme-court-justices


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #11 

Now we need to make an apointment to talk to Branstad and make sure he understands that Parents rights and that children need both parrents in their lives more then one parrent needs an extra paycheck every month at the expense of the other. Make sure that the 3 justices he apoints are aware that our group was signifigant enough to put the no over the top and that it wasn't just an anti gay thing. There were a lot of people like me who would have voted yes based on their rulling in the same sex marriage but had to vote NO because of thier refusal to help us out. And Make sure Branstad knows that we will be waching to see if our concerns are addressed when he apoints them.


__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
scooterrn

Member
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #12 

I voted no down the line. 

The removal of the Supreme Court justices is a start, however there are many more district court judges that remain, many of which are in there last term and wouldn't be retained on a vote due to the age constriction.  This is a great concern.  They're still a danger to the "fair and impartial" system.  I don't foresee them being effected by yesterday’s vote.  There is nothing for them to lose, but they can still damage the individual rights of the people in the time they have, as they have in the past.

 

My hope is the any incoming, appointed judge will take heed of what was said yesterday by the populace.  The people demand fair and impartial justice.  This IS a constitutional right.  We the People demand to be heard.  We demand that the evidence be reviewed and weighted and we do not expect that any judge cut of the testimony of the accused, because the decision has been made before the accused has been heard. That is unconstitutional and a violation of the public trust.

That judges reviews the case and see that there are reasons other judges didn't rule one way and that the case is brought before them, again after multiple other rulings, in a vain attempt for the accuser's to get their way and have the other rulings overturn by yet again, a different district court judge.  That rulings need to be consistently applied and not used to punish the person that was found to be in the right, because a judge can't find the little shred of fiction that is needed to rule in favor of the guilty without getting the ruling overturned.  Remember in civil cases it’s preponderance of evidence, not reasonable doubt.

 

Until our judiciary can prove that it is worthy of our public trust, until they demonstrate that the can truly be "fair and impartial", from the district courts to the Supreme Court, my family and I will continue to vote NO to retaining judges.

 

The courts may not have to be at the "will of the people", for they are charged they defending the Constitution and up holding the law, but then they need to follow the Constitution and the law and be fair and impartial in their rulings.


scooterrn

Member
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #13 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBW
IT IS NOT A GAY ISSUE..... IT IS A JUDGE ISSUE! PERIOD!


You are absolutely correct.  This isn't the first issue where they have jeopardized the rights of the public.  Casen actually violates both federal and state mental health privacy laws.

Heemstra was overturned because the defense implied that the jury was to ignorant to understand the difference bewteen an intentional act and willful injury causing death and while the distict court judge's wording in his instruction may not have passed muster (way to go Judge Joy, another DC judge screw up), I fully believe the jury knew the difference. 
ISC removed the rights of the Lyons' to life, liberty and happiness.
Still looks for Heemstra though, cuz he's not guilty.  Come out, come out where ever you are and man up.

what else will they do.  Give the public that which is their right.

BBW

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 357
Reply with quote  #14 
 YOUR FIRED!   A term the judicial branch needs to get used to. As long as they communicate ex-parte, are predisposed to have an opinion prior to testimony, will not apply the law equally and fairly, this will be the result. We are beginning to wake the public to this big dirty little secret. 
FORWARD HO!


__________________
The amount of success you have in solving a problem is directly proportional to the amount of constructive energy you put into solving it.
Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #15 
I sent this e-mail to Culver I hope he reads it and keeps our concerns in mind while replacing these 3 judges. I sent it to Culver because I think his last act will be to nominate replacements so I tried to keep it respectfull.

Governor Culver,

I wish to thank you for your term spent as governor of our state.

I have to say though that I am happy with how the judicial retention vote turned out. I also wish to inform you and the justices that my no vote was not influenced because of the decision on gay marriage, in fact if that was the only issue I would have voted yes. My vote was influenced by the number of noncustodial parents that have not received that same kind of justice that was show to the gay community. Time after time cases have not been heard or simply confirmed by this court without taking the time to hear the case.

As I understand that you will be replacing these justices I beg you to keep this issue in mind when searching for suitable candidates.

I wish you luck in your future plans.

Thank you for your time,

 


__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
FFDads

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 97
Reply with quote  #16 

Here's what the Telegraph Herald printed...


Retired Chief Judge Alan Pearson, of the First Judicial District in Iowa ...."I really feel like it's appropriate to make decisions about judicial retention based on judges' ethics, their work habits and other legitimate issues," he said. "There are right reasons to vote some judges out. I'm not trying to suggest that judges should never be voted out."

"There have been times in the past when judges were voted out, and I was familiar with nearly all of the judges who had been voted out of office, and I came away from the results of those votes feeling that it was appropriate. This year's vote was not appropriate."

It goes on to say that Pearson knew all three of the justices. "These were honest, hard-working, very intelligent, very dedicated people who have given a significant part of their work life to Iowa and the judiciary and have been ill-served by this. That's just the way I feel," he said.

"The truth is that I'm just very disappointed," he said. "My family has a Century Farm and we have lived and farmed in Iowa for a long, long time, and I am almost ashamed to say that I am an Iowan. That's how upset I am about introducing single-issue politics into the judicial-selection process."

The only part of the article that tries to explain that it wasn't just due to gay marriage is the following: 

Some 54 percent of the electorate voted to cast out the justices. However the number of Iowans who actually wanted the three justices removed because of the same-sex marriage ruling might be somewhat overstated. In a normal year when judges and justices are on the ballot, some 30 percent typically vote "no," even when there are no apparent issues.

How about writing the local papers to discuss our viewpoint on this?


BBW

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 357
Reply with quote  #17 
It is not about gays. It is a judge issue. The real point is that they do not want to be accountable. They want to be God and untouchable. There are plenty of judges violating their canons and they are beginning to be exposed. They are going to have to relearn that this country is about we the people, and our constitution, put in place by our framers. They will get used to going back and following the law, or be unemployed. If this judge knew the Supreme Court Chief Justice so well, how does he explain the underage drinking party she had at her home where her husband was arrested for hosting it? Follow the law or be held accountable for your actions.

__________________
The amount of success you have in solving a problem is directly proportional to the amount of constructive energy you put into solving it.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!