ADVERTISEMENT

A reader forwarded the text of a robocall that numerous Iowans have received from AFA Action targeting Chief Justice Marsha Ternus.

Imagine you’re a sheriff’s deputy. In the middle of the night, you’re dispatched to the home of Marsha Ternus, chief justice of the state Supreme Court. What you don’t expect to find at the home of Iowa’s chief justice is an illegal underage drinking party, her son and six other teens surrounded by, quote, “countless beer cans,” and preparing to drive home. You arrest them. You do your duty. It’s against the law. But you didn’t expect having to arrest Marsha Ternus’s husband too, another prominent lawyer, for obstructing your sworn duty. He’ll get twelve months probation. But you can’t help thinking: Is this any example for young people? Does it speak respect for the law? Adult responsibility? Does it make your job any easier, when the state’s chief judicial officer claims she was asleep at the switch? Should someone who doesn’t meet such minimum standards remain chief justice of the Iowa Supreme Court? No. Vote No on retention of Justice Marsha Ternus. This message paid for by AFA Action, including our many supporters here in Iowa.

I’ve heard a similar radio ad, and I want to be consistent.  I hate personal attacks regardless of who does them.

While I am voting no on retention, this isn’t the reason why.  I read about that case and was one of the first to blog about it.  I wondered how much the Chief Justice knew, and so far there is no proof that she was aware of the party.  We may assume that she was aware, but that is all it is an assumption.

So let’s hold her accountable for the right reasons – her overstepping her constitutional role when she legislated from the bench.  Hold her accountable for the decision made on same-sex marriage.

Let’s knock it off with the personal attacks.  I don’t like it when liberals do it, and we should be better than that as well.


ADVERTISEMENT

3 comments
  1. Poll of Iowa voters found that 55 percent were more likely to vote NO on retention of the Supreme Court because of the court’s decision imposing so-called homosexual “marriage” on the state. Pretty strong.

    But…

    Same poll found that SEVENTY-ONE percent of voters said they were more likely to vote NO on retention when reminded of the underage drinking party at Ternus’ home. Obviously, voters strongly believe it is a valid and serious issue, polling higher than any issue other in moving them toward a NO vote on retention.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Bruce Braley Is Off to See the Wizard

Congressman Bruce Braley (D-IA) in his remarks to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius likened Obamacare to the Wizard of Oz unaware that the Wizard was a complete fraud.

Pre-Abortion Ultrasound Bill Clears Iowa Legislature

The Iowa House and Senate passed language requiring an ultrasound is complete and a mother is given an opportunity to view it prior to an abortion.

Ethics Board Dismisses Complaint Against Two Iowa House Candidates

The Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board unanimously dismissed an ethics complaint made against Rebel Snodgrass and his former volunteer Phil Thompson.

Rod Blum: Congress Should Never Exempt Itself from Law of the Land

With news that Congress may exempt itself from Obamacare, Iowa 1st Congressional District GOP Candidate Rod Blum says they should live under the same law.