Litigation

No Let-Up in Debate Over IA Ousters

By Peter Hardin

More than a week after Election Day, there’s no let-up in the soul-searching and debate over the most notable judicial election results.

In Time, Adam Cohen wrote the following about Iowa, where three state Supreme Court justices were ousted in a retention election after an organized campaign assailed their votes to permit same-sex marriage:

“The Iowa vote is just the latest evidence that elections are a terrible way of choosing judges ? whether the decision is putting them in office or removing them.”

In Huffington Post, Kevin Cathcart of Lambda Legal wrote a commentary headlined, “Iowa Courts Under Attack.”

A commentary in The Heritage Foundation’s Foundry blog, on the other hand, said only three Iowa justices–and not more than 70 other judges on retention ballots in the state–were dumped.

The blog said the vote was a “a fair indication that Iowa voters do not deplore an independent judiciary but only rogue judges who put on political garb and trample upon the constitutional role of the representative branches.”

Phyllis Schlafly wrote at the Townhall.com website, “[W]e hope this landmark election signals the beginning of the end of rule by arrogant supremacist judges.”

In Balkinization blog, Brian Tamanaha brought a historical perspective by looking at a time 100 years ago when “judicial recall fever swept the United States.”

Full post as published by The Gavel on November 10, 2010 (boomark / email).