I’m calling it… I’ve been watching the vote count all evening and with 1502 out of 1774 precincts reporting in…
-
Michael J. Streit – NO 54.65% YES 45.95%
-
Marsha Ternus – NO 54.65% YES 45.35%
-
David Baker – NO 53.93% YES 46.07%
I don’t see them having enough votes to overcome with the remaining precincts left.
Shane Vander Hart
Editor & Founder at Caffeinated Thoughts
Shane Vander Hart is the founder and editor-in-chief of Caffeinated Thoughts. He is also the President of 4:15 Communications, LLC, a social media & communications consulting/management firm. Prior to this Shane spent 20 years in youth ministry serving in church, parachurch, and school settings. He has also served as an interim pastor and is a sought-after speaker and pulpit fill-in. Shane has been married to his wife Cheryl since 1993 and they have three kids. Shane and his family reside near Des Moines, IA.
Latest posts by Shane Vander Hart (see all)
- Live Blog: Kim Reynolds and Fred Hubbell Meet for 2nd Debate - October 17, 2018
- Pediatricians Group: Comprehensive Sex Education Is a Failure - October 17, 2018
- Iowa’s Revenue Projected to Grow in FY 19 and FY 20 - October 17, 2018
Sad.
No they should not have legislated from the bench and then try to act like the executive branch to enforce their ruling. They acted improperly and deserved to not to be retained.
Judicial activism = decisions one disagrees with
Interpreting the constitution = decisions one agrees with
Anyway, congrats on the Republican wins in Iowa (and elsewhere). The Dems mostly won here in Oregon. So I guess we’ve both got something to be happy about.
Judicial activism = creating a “right” that isn’t enumerated in the Constitution (State or Federal)
Interpreting the Constitution = upholding laws that conform to the Constitution (as did the Iowa DOMA law) AND knocking down laws that abridge rights that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The SCOI “Judges” violated the first with Varnum . . . for years they have allowed laws that violate the last to stand.
Great rebuttal!
You guys are way too smart for me. I think I’ve finally learned my lesson and will stop wasting my time. Congrats again to the GOP. It was a good fight. I look forward to the next one.
Matt,
We just reject the premise that you have to have a law degree to understand the constitution.
And we’re looking forward to 2012 provided our guys keep their promises… we’re sick of talk.
IOWANS MUST BE PROUD OF GETTING RID OF ANARCHISTS IN ROBES.
Congratulations to the people of Iowa for getting rid of these anarchist Judges. “Gay marriage” is not marriage. If gays living together is “marriage”, then 2 donkeys in a barn are also marriage. These judges were so intoxicated with power that they lost their common sense and ignored the law. These anarchists effective abused their office for political ends as they wanted to placate the liberal establishment. They were intellectually corrupt and dishonest to allow the bizarre notion of “gay marriage.” The general public has more common sense and it showed.
We are proud of the common-sense of the Iowans. They understand the law better than these “Judges.” It is time to undo the damage done by these nutcases in robes. It is time to elect Republicans to the Presidency to nominate more law-abiding conservative Judge to the US Supreme Court to prevent the insanity of gay “marriage” from spreading.
THE EQUAL RIGHTS FRAUDSTERS.
There are many liberals who are trying to argue in support of “gay marriage” claiming that it is protected under the constitution under the “equal rights” clause.
Most of these making such proclamations have no idea of the law and do not understand the “Equal Rights” clause.
If “equal rights” is to be taken literally and if it means therefore that gays can also “marry” each other because a man can marry a woman, then why can’t a man marry his sister or his mother? Or marry 5 women? They have “equal rights” too.
The liberals cannot answer that question.
“Equal rights” simply means that the govt. cannot discriminate against one compared to another SIMILARLY SITUATED according to a list of criteria. The list of criteria the govt. can use can be quite long and for the govt. to make.
The criteria for marriage is that it is between an unmarried adult man and an unmarried adult woman. Homosexual adult men are not denied the right to marry an adult woman. So they do have equal rights.
Case closed.
Thanks. After 3 years of law school and more than 8 years practicing civil rights law, I had no idea it was that simple.
People in Iowa currently have the freedom to marry another adult, regardless of sex. They are not restricted to one set of partners based on sex. The right can be restircted if the state has a compelling interest, and it could not show one to justify discrimination on the basis of sex.
I’m fearful this victory will embolden the opponents of liberty to try to greatly restrict the freedom to choose a marriage partner. If that happens, Iowa should scrap its motto, “Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain.”
Polk County was one of the few counties where the majority did not vote no on retention for judges… so of course Hanson wasn’t going to be ousted since only Polk County voters voted on him. What’s your point. If he had been elsewhere in the state he’d be gone. Polk County and Des Moines in particular has shifted more to the left so that is hardly surprising.
Polk County was one of the few counties where the majority did not vote no on retention for judges… so of course Hanson wasn’t going to be ousted since only Polk County voters voted on him. What’s your point. If he had been elsewhere in the state he’d be gone. Polk County and Des Moines in particular has shifted more to the left so that is hardly surprising.
Well, Shane, you did make a special point here to urge people to oust Judge Hanson (“In Iowa: How I’m Voting on Federal, State and County Races, Judicial Retention, Constitutional Convention and Legacy Fund”). His race wasn’t even a squeaker.
And your point is what? I live in Polk County so of course I’m going to encourage my neighbors to vote no.
Shane–
I just wanted to point out that he was retained, even though the three judges who upheld his ruling subject to a retention vote were not. That’s all.
Polk County was one of the few counties where the majority did not vote no on retention for judges… so of course Hanson wasn’t going to be ousted since only Polk County voters voted on him. What’s your point. If he had been elsewhere in the state he’d be gone. Polk County and Des Moines in particular has shifted more to the left so that is hardly surprising.
Polk County was one of the few counties where the majority did not vote no on retention for judges… so of course Hanson wasn’t going to be ousted since only Polk County voters voted on him. What’s your point. If he had been elsewhere in the state he’d be gone. Polk County and Des Moines in particular has shifted more to the left so that is hardly surprising.
Polk County was one of the few counties where the majority did not vote no on retention for judges… so of course Hanson wasn’t going to be ousted since only Polk County voters voted on him. What’s your point. If he had been elsewhere in the state he’d be gone. Polk County and Des Moines in particular has shifted more to the left so that is hardly surprising.
Polk County was one of the few counties where the majority did not vote no on retention for judges… so of course Hanson wasn’t going to be ousted since only Polk County voters voted on him. What’s your point. If he had been elsewhere in the state he’d be gone. Polk County and Des Moines in particular has shifted more to the left so that is hardly surprising.