Gay marrige- Iowa judges version

[nerd1]

I live in a state called Iowa, in the US, and recently, in a unanimous decision, these judges voted that not allowing queers to be married is unconstitutional. later on, because of a la in Iowa that states that once every ten years, Iowans vote if they want to retain a portion of their judges. for the firs time in Iowa history, they voted no, because of the gay marriage issue, do you think it is a good idea for the law to allow citizens to vote off judges? personally i do not. opinions?

[Belthus]

The appointment of judges -- and pretty much all government decisions -- should be the result of a deliberative process (i.e., examining qualifications and record). Elections are not a deliberative process, though some voters may engage in deliberation on their own initiative. A jury is an example of a deliberative process done by ordinary people, not elites, so it is possible.

[QuantumT]

This is exactly why Supreme Court appointments are for life. So that the judges can do what is right, instead of what's popular.

[zse]

Citizens should always have the right to say their opinion whether they still think their leaders are good for the position or should the leaders be changed. In other words the government should always be controlled by the people. Being nominated for life on a position with high authority only leads to severe problems, some notable rulers that were "chosen" for their positions for life: Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein...

This is exactly why Supreme Court appointments are for life. So that the judges can do what is right, instead of what's popular.

Do what is right, like make statement that the candidate who got 2nd most votes on presidential elections is elected for president. ???

The whole point of democracy in modern world is that everything gets done the way the people wants = what's popular. If the judges really could do what they think is right regardless of the people, US government type should be changed to oligarchy.

So if it wasn't clear by now, I voted Yes, people should have the right to do so.

[Belthus]

Citizens should always have the right to say their opinion whether they still think their leaders are good for the position or should the leaders be changed. In other words the government should always be controlled by the people. Being nominated for life on a position with high authority only leads to severe problems, some notable rulers that were "chosen" for their positions for life: Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein...

Lifetime appointments are a separate issue. We can shorten appointment times without relying on ballot initiatives.

The dictator examples are absurd. Judges are nothing like dictators. They operate with many constraints and have a limited sphere of influence. You may disagree with their rulings, but that doesn't mean you are being oppressed.

There is a danger of concentration of power in elites. However, mob rule is also a danger. In a democracy, no one will always get what they want, and some people will be perpetually frustrated. The problem with ballot initiatives is that decisions are made by low-information voters who are swayed by well-funded demagogues.

[QuantumT]

Do what is right, like make statement that the candidate who got 2nd most votes on presidential elections is elected for president. ???

Which happened when? It wasn't when Bush beat Gore.

[Hyroen]

Can we find a word or phrase to replace "queers" please?

[Uppercut]

I actually think being able to routinely vote off judges is a good thing. It allows judges that represent the people to stay in while getting rid of those who don't. My only problem with the law is that the majority of people are stupid, especially here in Iowa. The amount Palin-esque conservatism I see on a day to day basis is frightening.

Can we find a word or phrase to replace "queers" please?

Fanny fillers?

[Kamietsu]

Popular opinion isn't always what's right, but it's basically what we as a country run on. I don't always agree with it, but it beats what happens when people don't get there way. But the bad thing is, some will get their way, some won't, and that's true with every single thing since the beginning of whenever. Popular is what's in, and when popular doesn't win or what's done, people go nuts. When popular is put in, the people with the unpopular opinion go nuts, but since it's a minority when compare to the popular opinion, it's usually not seen as much.

[zse]

Do what is right, like make statement that the candidate who got 2nd most votes on presidential elections is elected for president. ???

Which happened when? It wasn't when Bush beat Gore.

The supreme court stopped the Florida recount and Bush was elected for president while he had only 50,4M votes vs. 51,0M votes on Gore. You do the math. What shocks me even more in that situation is the total number of votes: only ~100M votes from ~280M population. Don't you guys care who's leading your country?

[QuantumT]

Do what is right, like make statement that the candidate who got 2nd most votes on presidential elections is elected for president. ???

Which happened when? It wasn't when Bush beat Gore.

The supreme court stopped the Florida recount and Bush was elected for president while he had only 50,4M votes vs. 51,0M votes on Gore. You do the math. What shocks me even more in that situation is the total number of votes: only ~100M votes from ~280M population. Don't you guys care who's leading your country?

Gore was only calling for a recount in specific areas where he was likely to gain votes, but not in areas where he would likely lose them.

A couple sources went back and check afterwords (CNN.com, LA Times, Washington Post, Miami Herald, USA Today), and they all agreed that Bush likely would have won anyway.

That aside, there's more that went into making that decision then you seem to be aware of, so I'd recommend you go actually read the case before you talk about it.

[zse]

Do what is right, like make statement that the candidate who got 2nd most votes on presidential elections is elected for president. ???

Which happened when? It wasn't when Bush beat Gore.

The supreme court stopped the Florida recount and Bush was elected for president while he had only 50,4M votes vs. 51,0M votes on Gore. You do the math. What shocks me even more in that situation is the total number of votes: only ~100M votes from ~280M population. Don't you guys care who's leading your country?

Gore was only calling for a recount in specific areas where he was likely to gain votes, but not in areas where he would likely lose them.

A couple sources went back and check afterwords (CNN.com, LA Times, Washington Post, Miami Herald, USA Today), and they all agreed that Bush likely would have won anyway.

What the end result would have been is not the issue. If the recount was started in the first place, it quite obviously shows that there were some legislation that made it possible for Gore to make such a claim. If there weren't such law, how did the recount even got started?

That aside, there's more that went into making that decision then you seem to be aware of, so I'd recommend you go actually read the case before you talk about it.

I'm sorry that I wasted your time, since you must have multiple PhD on this subject... Yes, lets talk only about those things we actually know. So how's the weather there, eh? It's freezing cold here and it just started snowing.