 Todd DormanTodd Dorman is a columnist for The Gazette. His blog has been bringing smiles to readers' faces since November 2007. |
|
Email the author
Scenes from the judge hunt
‘Vote No’ supporter Sondra Wolcott of Cedar Rapids is flanked by ‘Vote Yes’ supporters at competing rallies on the retention vote for Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins at Greene Square Park in Cedar Rapids on Tuesday. (Adam Carros, The Gazette-KCRG)
I think both sides of the dueling judicial retention vote no/vote yes tours that stopped at Greene Square Park in downtown Cedar Rapids left happy. Astounding, I know.
The Iowa Bar Association’s “Yes Iowa Judges” tour, which, it turns out, has a truck, not a bus, drew about 150 enthusiastic people at midday. Impressive.
A little later, Bob Vander Plaats and his “No Wiggins” bus mates got heckled. And they couldn’t have been happier.
“I love this stuff,” a very smiley Vander Plaats said to some members of the audience, just after his remarks were repeatedly interrupted by a handful of folks left over from the vote yes rally. “It helps us.”
The heckling did help sprinkle some much-needed spice on an otherwise warmed-over message that drew a smallish crowd, maybe a couple dozen people. Without the audience interjections, which, at one point, prompted a police officer to patiently urge the crowd to show some respect, this would have been, mostly, the same shtick we’ve heard before.
They remain outraged by the justices’ unanimous 2009 ruling striking down the ban on same-sex marriage. They insist it’s an unconstitutional overstep. They tossed three justices in 2010. They want to toss out Justice David Wiggins this fall. And they’re on a bus. Lather, rinse, repeat, but don’t retain.
Former Republican National Committeewoman from Iowa, Kim Lehman, argued that the justices, including Wiggins, somehow violated their code of conduct by extending equal protection under the law to same-sex couples.
Tamara Scott, a conservative activist with Concerned Women of Iowa, pointed to Wiggins’ sluggish 63-percent approval rating from members of the Iowa Bar Association. So I guess those ratings matter now. They didn’t seem to back in 2010, when BVP, etc., crusaded against three justices who scored in the 70s and 80s.
“This is not personal,” said Scott, standing beneath three-foot tall letters spelling out “Wiggins” on the side of a huge bus. He’s the only judge among the 74 on the ballot being targeted for removal.
“We’re thrilled to be in Cedar Rapids. This is democracy at work,” said Vander Plaats, who later lauded judges in Hawaii for keeping gay marriage illegal.
“Drive the bus there,” a heckler yelled.
“Equal protection, Bob. Read the Constitution,” another shouted.
Yeah, that would be nice. But what’s less nice is heckling the No-ers after they allowed the Yes forces to rally unmolested. I understand the passions involved, but allowing people to speak is not an endorsement of their views.
The Vote Yes event was a far better organized and more spirited event than I anticipated from the torts and writs crowd. Christine Branstad, a Des Moines attorney and niece of the governor, made a forceful argument for shielding the courts from the pressures of electoral politics, with its big money contributions and paybacks.
“We have judges who have earned their way into our system,” said Branstad, before describing the work of an unnamed Supreme Court justice who has a child on her child’s swim team. “I see him sitting in the basement of the YMCA, reading briefs,” she said. “He’s not making phone calls to (raise money). He’s not kissing babies…”
“You don’t have to give money to a campaign to have a fair shot in our courts,” Branstad said.
So I guess one Branstad in Iowa with a law degree isn’t afraid to have an opinion on this issue.
Before the rallies, I ran into Kate Varnum and her 11-month old son Alex. Kate and Trish, married in 2009, were lead plaintiffs in the landmark case that led to all this rallying. He is very cute. His family is very busy, like a lot of us.
I’m glad I saw them, especially today. It’s just nice to know at least some people involved in this saga have actually moved on.
-u20042.png?1366232523)
There really is a difference between equal rights and special rights. Why is it so difficult to understand that?
Justice Wiggins is a mediocre justice at best. We can do much better. Todd extols the virtue of the selection process so let’s give Todd what he wants – vote Wiggins out of office and replace him with someone better.
I would add that Justice Wiggins doesn’t understand the Iowa Constitution or the 14th Amendment and has twisted the words to reflect his personal opinion on same-sex marriage.
we aren’t moving on Todd you are wrong, we are right and we plan to vote against Justive Wiggins retention because he is a bad judge. The is the same stance on President Obama. President Obama is a terrible President; the price of gas has doubled, the federal deficit has increased 50%, unemployment has increased under and President Obama is a mean-spirited politican who is a bully and an underachiever.
Vote No on Wiggins, Vote Yes on Romney.
If the people of Iowa had the chance to vote on such an important issue we would not be talking about Wiggins or any other judge.
Mr Ellis,
What is your basis for saying that Justice Wiggins does not understant the 14th Amendment or Iowa’s Constitution.
Article 1 Section 6– “All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation”— seems pretty clear to me. Iowa’s DOMA is unconstitutional because it singles out a specific class of people for different treatment based on nothing other than the religious beliefs of some, not all, people
Mr Ahart,
If this issue had beeen decided by popular vote, we’d still have the same problem. It’s called a lawsuit which would have been decided the same way. How many judges, Mr Ahart, do you think you need to get rid of before you finally get one who will decide things your way?
I invite anyone to read Section 6 of Article 1 of the Iowa constitution and explain how the DOMA law was not in violation of it. It reads, “All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”
DOMA took away a the right to marriage from one class of citizens while it is enjoyed by another class of citizens. That is clearly in violation of the constitution. The court recognized that and voted unanimously that DOMA was in violation of the constitution. They did what their oath required them to do.
How pathetic that some people would attempt to fire justices for upholding the constitution as required by their oath.
People should realize that if they don’t like the outcome of the Varnum v Brien case, they need to blame the constitution, not the justices who upheld it. This is like firing the postman who delivered news you did not like.
I find it funny that the folks who wear the tricorns and wave the Gadsden Flag at their rallies and wrap themselves in the Constitution get all bent out of shape when we do ensure citizens may freely enjoy their Constitutional Rights. How quickly they make the mad dash from Constitution to Bible when it suits them, forgetting that we are a secular nation, not a theocracy. We are not governed by Sharia law, nor Abrahamic law, nor Levitican law, nor any other set of religion-based law, but by the laws set forth through the Constitution. It matters not what your god(s) say, nor what mine says, but what the Constitution says. In this case, every last Justice sitting on Iowa’s Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution of Iowa does not allow the discriminatory restriction of a person’s Rights, as a certain small fundamentalist religious sect demanded. Mind you, this wasn’t a closely-split decision, but a unanimous one. The Constitution is clear on the issue, and the Constitution trumps any bible or scroll.
It’s even funnier that folks were saying yesterday that “gay marriage is being forced on us”. Nope, no one is forcing anyone to marry anyone. No one is forcing their church to participate or even recognize same-gender marriages. These folks have no standing on the issue, because it has absolutely no effect on them. None. Nada. Zilch. Zip.
Would that those folks go back to complaining about taxes and socialism (as they drive on public roads and complain of threats to their medicare)….good times.
“It reads, “All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”
For more than two thousand years the religious definition of marriage is that between a man and a woman. Laws governing that bond set a “legal precendence”. A few judges violated that precedence by granting one group – same sexers a priveledge over the majority of opinion. If the homosexual community wants the same legal rights as that of marriage the majority have no problem with that. The straight community do, and should have, a problem with calling it marriage, as form of religious descrimination. The same sexers can call it something else like “civil unions”.
Same sex marriage has more to do with the Liberal Democrat goal of destroying the family and constitution than actual marriage of sorts by itself.
“For more than two thousand years the religious definition of marriage is that between a man and a woman.”
The operative word there is “religious”: That means it’s irrelevant to the discussion. We’re talking about what goes on in the State House and Court House, not in some church or religious center.
Also, assuming you’re basing your assertions on the Judeo-Christian Bible, you got your facts wrong. Here’s a handy chart showing the various definitions of marriage in the Bible: http://www.religioustolerance.org/biblemarriage.jpg Still, irrelevant as no one religion trumps another in our great nation, and no religious perspective trumps the Constitution.
Another correction for you: The goal of the “Liberal Democrat” is to strengthen and preserve families and support and defend the Constitution. You must have meant to say “Regressive Republican” or perhaps “Fundamentalist Zealot”.
Joe’s link is common to the social destruction so prevalent regarding the hateful Liberal agenda. Destruction of the nuclear family is the goal as well as destroying all symbology of any religious articles traditional to the foundation of America. Virtually ALL liberal agendas have one common thread – gain so called “rights” by taking them away from another. It doesn’t matter if it’s entitlements or same sex .
There you go again – making claims about destroying the family and taking away rights without any proof. Please cite an example of same sex marriage harming traditional marriage and please cite an example of rights being taken away.
If you have no examples, just say so. Please don’t resort to more unfounded hyperbole. It’s getting old.
There is no “social destruction” in the link I provided. What is there is evidence refuting the “biblical/traditional marriage” argument David and his ilk often make, showing it to be complete hogwash. While his bible is not authoritative in regards to the law of our land, even if it were, one-man-one-woman is but one of several varieties of marriage in that bible. David cannot, as usual, present any evidence to support his premise, so he launches into irrational attacks those of us who recognize a naked emperor when we see one.
David goes on to claim that “liberal agendas” seek to gain Rights by taking them away from others. Fear-mongering is another one of his modi operandi. The truth is quite simple and plain: The only folks seeking to restrict other people’s Rights are the Davids of the world. It’s a very anti-American position to take, wrapped in the guise of phony patriotism. It can easily be argued that these Davidians may be the “domestic” enemies of the Constitution addressed in that oath we took when we wore the boots and served our country.
Same-sex is just another component of the Cloward-Piven Strategy that dates back to the mid 1960′s. Liberals tend to think all Americans are just plain stupid and will follow them off the economic and social cliff.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/theclowardpivenstrategypoe.html
Ah, good ol’ Beck U education coming through, David. Care to show any connection at all between Cloward-Piven and same-gender marriage, or is this just another component of the Goebels Strategy (that dates back to the 1930′s) for dealing with the opposition you regressives are so well-known for? Regressives count on the just plain stupid Americans to blindly follow them when they’re prodded a bit with fear, uncertainty and doubt….right off the economic and anti-social cliff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Public_Enlightenment_and_Propaganda
David – You have tried this stunt before. I read the entire link you provided and did not find a single reference to same sex marriage. This alleged linkage between the Cloward-Piven strategy and same sex marriage is pure hooey.
Please show us a credible link between Cloward-Piven and same sex marriage. If you cannot, please quite insulting our intelligence with purely made-up stories.
Mr Ahart,
How exactly does giving one set of people the same rights as another set of people take away rights from that second set of people.
You’ve already conceeded “civil unions” so what is your problem? The government is not forcing any church, temple, mosque, synagogue to perform or recognize any marriage that they do not want to. Conversely, the government is no longer preventing any church, temple, mosque, synagogue from performing or recognizing any marriage if that’s what they want to do.
So how is religious freedom being compromised?
Forcing your religious beliefs on people who do not share them is not religious freedom
Any reference to “majority of opinion” is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is compliance with the constitution. DOMA violated the constitution and you have said nothing here to prove it otherwise.
We’ve had same sex marriage in this state for over 3 years. Please cite an example of how the family or constitution has been harmed by same sex marriage.
The “hypocracy” of the Liberal agenda proclaiming to comply with constitutional rights while ALWAYS stomping on the rights of others. What a joke. So destructive. So negative.
“ALWAYS stomping on the rights of others”. Please cite an example.
The only folks seeking to restrict the Rights of others are David and his ilk What sad liars. So destructive. So anti-American.
I owe you nothing Greer. I stated my case and if you don’t like it that’s just tuff. The majority should have the “right” to keep the traditional definition of marriage. As I’ve said before the majority, in my opinion do not care who is with who, or as one of your constant same sex arguments, “who is sleeping with who”. Simply call it something else and retain all the legal rights as that of a married couple. Stop forcing people to behave and think according to your agenda. We don’t buy it and never will.
I suppose you will also claim it’s the liberal’s “right” to force Catholics to pay-against their will and religious beliefs for abortion and birht control as well. What a joke.
So, David, you support same-sex [something, as long as it isn't called marriage]. All this because you’re quibbling over semantics, because you’re unable to understand that words may have more than one definition? No one is asking you to buy anything. We are, however, demanding that our Constitutional Rights are preserved and not usurped by you and your cohorts. My marriage is none of your business, regardless of my spouse’s gender. Stop claiming some divine right – it doesn’t exist here in America.
No one is forcing Catholics to violate their personal religious beliefs, as any intelligent and informed person knows. That *businesses* must abide by business rules and regulations is another issue entirely. Don’t want to follow business rules, don’t be in the business. Again, no divine right here, regardless of how much you may wail and fuss.
“No one is forcing Catholics to violate their personal religious beliefs, as any intelligent and informed person knows”.
Obviously you are neither informed no intelligent regarding the matter.
Says you, Herr Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda.
Please cite a reasonably unbiased source, David, lest we assume that this is merely more of your Minitrue historical revisionism.
David, you are right – you owe me nothing. However, if you want to be believed, you owe the readers of this column some evidence in support of your positions.
You have a habit of making unfounded and misinformed statements and you almost never provide any credible evidence to support what you say. Today’s reference to the Cloward-Piven Strategy was a great example. I’ll just let other readers decide for themselves how credible your comments are. I already know.
I’ve never seen Greer provide one source of evidence in the last five months. Zero credibility.
He only makes the same charge again and again with everyone he does not agree with. I have plenty of company on that account.
Anyone who has followed what I have posted knows that your statement about me has as much credibility as any of your other statements.
Now tell us, with a credible reference, about the connection between the Cloward-Piven strategy and same sex marriage or admit that you totally made that up. Don’t do it for me. Do it to gain credibility with other readers.