Judges asked to declare their stances

[leQ]

DES MOINES — A newly formed group called Iowans Concerned About Judges is asking about 80 judges who are up for retention this November to declare their positions on a number of controversial issues.

The group, made up of a handful of conservative organizations, contends Iowans have a right to know how judges feel about same-sex marriage, abortion, assisted suicide, eminent domain, displaying the Ten Commandments in courtrooms and schools and other issues

The five-page judicial questionnaire, containing 15 questions, was e-mailed this month to judges who are up for retention. The two-week deadline to return the form is Thursday.

Chuck Hurley, president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, said voters want to be informed when deciding whether to retain judges. Part of their concern, he said, is that judicial activism has crept into the American judiciary. The questionnaire aims to bring accountability, he added.

more @ the Globe Gazette. i wonder if iowa has this conservative group trying to pin judges down on how they're going to vote on certain issues that other states don't have the same problem with these reich-wing extremists who are attacking the judicial branch of our government.

[liberal N proud]

1. That is just wrong!

In so many ways that is just wrong.

Where do these fundamentalist bastards get of on telling the world what they are allowed to believe or think?

[Biernuts]

28. Damn straight, he next time any senator asks a USSC nominee if

he or she is committed to preserving reproductive choice, I'll just refer them to this thread and tell them to pound sand.

You can ask anything you want - freedom of speech and all. And no GOOD judicial nominee at any level would offer any view contrary to "I will rule according to the law".

[elehhhhna]

2. No no no no no no no no. Judges must rule based on the LAW.

They must write opinions which explain how they rule based on THE LAW. They must explain how each individual question brought before them -- no hypothticals here--is decided, BASED on THE LAW.

End of story.

[nashville_brook]

8. KNR! shows how little these demons care about DEMOCRACY

[blm]

3. Judges should declare their position on supporting CORPORATISM over worker

and consumer rights.

But does that interest the GOP operatives pushing the demagoguery?

[EVDebs]

25. Outing with a list of all Federalist Society members would be nice

http://www.fed-soc.org/

[formercia]

29. They're behind a lot of this

strict interpretation with disregard for the Bill of Rights bullshit.

[LiberalFighter]

33. Journalist's Guide to Legal Experts (Federalist Society)

Journalist's Guide to Legal Experts

I have my list of 438 which I am sure is not everybody but should include everybody that FS has on their website.

[gratuitous]

4. No respectable judge candidate will return the questionnaire

This is the same sort of know-nothingism that had the repressive right all up in arms over "unsigned" newspaper editorials. Judges don't make rulings without a case and evidence before them, and newspapers don't "sign" editorials.

Hard to say who the bigger dimwits are: the panderers who create these groups, or the dupes they persuade to think stupid things.

[shraby]

5. They might regret getting what they are asking for.

If the questionaires are returned with answers, voters may reject conservative views at the polls. The whole idea is definitely wrong-headed, but that never stopped them before. I sincerely hope this jumps up and bites them in the part they sit on.

[praeclarus]

6. another character assassination tool.

How about they know that the questionnaire isn't likely
to be returned and then they can create some nice infomercials
along the lines of "What does <this judge we don't want> have
to hide? He wouldn't answer our simple questions." Meanwhile
not mentioning the fact that <this judge we do want> didn't answer
it either.

[LiberalFighter]

34. How will we know that the judges they support returned the survey?

[Nikki Stone 1]

7. I'd actually like to have this information

Voting for judges is always problematic. It's hard to know much about them unless you are an attorney who has been in their courtroom. You can find education information (sometimes) but not necessarily records of their decisions, unless they were involved in a very public case.

I'd like to know that the judges I vote for are not neocon activists.

[Bretttido]

22. That's what looking at previous decisions are for

Looking at their "opinions" is absolutely ridiculous.

[Nikki Stone 1]

35. Yes, and it's hard to find those decisions for the average person

Any suggestions?

[Nite Owl]

9. That is against the law

The idea of judges is provide a fair trial, a trial without prejudice, that is, to look at all the facts of the law and then make a judgement.

prej·u·dice (prj-ds) Pronunciation Key
n.

An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
A preconceived preference or idea.
The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

tr.v. prej·u·diced, prej·u·dic·ing, prej·u·dic·es
To cause (someone) to judge prematurely and irrationally. See Synonyms at bias.
To affect injuriously or detrimentally by a judgment or an act.

[brentspeak]

10. My advice to any judge who receives this questionnaire in the mail

Tear it up into a thousand tiny, little pieces; put the pieces into an envelope; and send it right back to the morans at the Iowa Family Policy Center.

[meganmonkey]

11. How the judges 'feel' about things?

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

Give me a break.

[stepnw1f]

12. Little Nazis Nutcases

Want this whole country to be forced into submiting to fundementalism, and by doing so are attacking the Constitution and our country. They have no business living in a democracy nor do they merit being a part of the political process.

[BreweryYardRat]

32. Yep. Hate to say it, but as far as I'm concerned...

If corporations want slave labor, they can have these fundie bastards. I'll swap one of them for some poor abused Third World kid any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Edit: The Third World kid would have the decency not to pull unconstitutional stunts like this.

[Sgent]

13. Any judge who completes this

questionaire -- should be voted out.

[Ragin_mad]

14. If this is so wrong

Then is it wrong for the Senate to ask questions just like this to Judge nominees before they vote on them ?

[Exultant Democracy]

17. That is my question too

I agree that judges have to be careful not to put themselves where they will have to recuse themselves, but I'm sure they can find a way to put more information about themselves available to the public so that they know what they are voting for.

[karlrschneider]

20. Rarely do Senate confirmation questioners ask for SPECIFIC

answers on a narrow issue. And when they do, they generally get the runaround they deserve.

[patdem]

15. Who said "I swear on the bible to uphold the constitution, I do not

swear on the constitution ot uphold the bible" I do not remember who, but I will never forget that quote, it was quite brilliant!

[baldguy]

19. Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law professor from American University

to Maryland state Sen Nancy Jacobs (R-Theocrat) regarding a bill defining marraige as between a man and a woman.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/252152.htm

[MasonJar]

16. Send one to Scalia & his clone & to Roberts & to all the etcs.

around the country.

[baldguy]

18. "I decide each case on its merits..."

"...with regard to the Constitution and the Laws of the United States and the State of Iowa."

[Bretttido]

21. The judges should unanimously ignore the inquisition

[KansDem]

23. BWAHAHAHAHA, what hypocrites!

Part of their concern, he said, is that judicial activism has crept into the American judiciary. The questionnaire aims to bring accountability, he added.

Where was this toe-rag when the Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Gore?

I mean, I'm sure we would've all liked to have known where:

Sandra "I'm not going to retire during a Democratic administration" O'Connor, and
Tony "my sons work for a law firm representing Bush family interests" Scalia, and
Clarence "my wife works for the Bush Transition Team" Thomas

...stood.


edited for spelling

[KaptBunnyPants]

24. But, during the confirmation hearings, we learned that judges

have no idea how they will vote for something until after they review the specific case. Has the judicial system changed in the last 5 months?

[annabanana]

26. k&r. . . . . n/t

[Biernuts]

27. All this touchy FEELY crap is a waste of time. How I feel about

a law (how I'd vote on it in the legislature) cannot be more irrelevant to weather the law is proper under the US and State Constitutions and applying it accordingly.

The ONLY question that matters: "Will you rule according to the law REGARDLESS of how you feel about it?"

[adamuu]

30. What is 'judicial activism,' then?

Isn't it, 'judging based on personal pre-disposition, as opposed to what is written in law and presented as evidence in a particular case?'

[Biernuts]

31. I'd define it differently. Judicial activitation may be those acts of

commission or ommission that change the state of the law as opposed to applying it. Judicial activitism, isn't always bad, nor is it universally good; and, neither the right or left have a monopoly in this area.

Commission: Good activitism (by my view anyway): Brown v. Board of Education. Congress and the states did not pass laws integrating schools. The legal state before Brown was Plessy v. Ferguson, which established "Separate but Equal" as the constitutional standard. Brown reversed precedent (who ARE all those arguing during USSC nomination hearings that precedent always MUST be followed?) and ESTABLISHED a new law: Separate but equal is inherently unequal.

Commission: Bad - Roe v. Wade. Stripped states' authority to legislate relative to 1st term abortion and set off a 45 year (and counting) civil war that energizes the right wing's single-issue voters. (I'm personally pro-choice, but this was poorly-crafted law.) Had Roe states it wasn't a federal question, and abortion continued to be regulated by the states, the battles would be for the state legislatures. Britian, which has a very progressive law, doesn't have the acrimony since it was passed by Parliment, not imposed by the law lords.

Ommission - good. Dred Scott. The constitution at the time clearly allowed for slavery and all the shitty baggage that went with it. Had the court overturned it at Dred Scott, the Civil War would have occurred without the leadership of Lincoln and the US probably would be two separate (and unequal) countries. Great example of hating the practice, yet recognizing that a constitutional amendment was required for change.

Ommission - bad. Buck v. Bell (Never overturned - still the law of the land) Virginia can sterilize retarded persons involuntarily. Overturning on the basis of equal protection would have been proper. Letting it stand was activism and the rationale (not an exact quote) "A society that can require the supreme sacrifice from its finest citizens , can require lesser sacrifices from its lesser citizens .