Ouster of Iowa Judges Reveals NOM's Anti-Constitution Agenda

The New York Times has a lengthy piece that looks at the ouster of the three justices of the Iowa Supreme Court. While the Times doesn't come right out an say it, the goal of NOM and similar Christofascists is to destroy the concept of an independent judiciary and in the process destroy the balance of powers under the U. S. Constitution. The courts have always been part of the design to reign in the legislative branch and executive branches not to mention act as a bulwark to protect the rights of minorities. NOM and other Christianist want nothing less than raw mob majority rule. That was more or less their argument in backing Proposition 8. The majority makes the rules and everyone else can go f*ck themselves. It's all about satisfying and stroking the perverted egos of self-congratulatory bigots like Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown (who like so many professional gay haters, is probably a closet case), the leaders of the Mormon and Catholic Churches, all of whom are only content when they can look down upon and treat others as inferiors. As I have said many times, these people are a clear and present danger to the U.S. Constitution and must be stopped. Other minorities need to wake up to the danger since the Christianist despise many of them almost as much as gays. The only irony that gives me comfort is that in not too many years, these lily white Christianist will likely be in the minority themselves and their own rhetoric, if successful, is setting the stage for a new majority to revoke the rights and privileges of these bastards. Karma can be a bitch. Here are highlights from the Times article:
*
An unprecedented vote to remove three Iowa Supreme Court justices who were part of the unanimous decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the state was celebrated by conservatives as a popular rebuke of judicial overreach, even as it alarmed proponents of an independent judiciary.
*
Leaders of the recall campaign said the results should be a warning to judges elsewhere. . . . “It’s we the people, not we the courts.”
*
But critics of the campaign, including those who see the courts as a protector of minority rights, said the politicization of uncontested judicial elections represented a danger.
*
“What is so disturbing about this is that it really might cause judges in the future to be less willing to protect minorities out of fear that they might be voted out of office,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. “Something like this really does chill other judges.”
*
From its first decision in 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court demonstrated a willingness to push ahead of public opinion on matters of minority rights, ruling against slavery, school segregation and discrimination decades before the national mood shifted toward racial equality.
*
National Organization for Marriage and the American Family Association, poured money into the removal campaign. Judges face no opponents in retention elections and simply need to win more yes votes than no votes to go on to another eight-year term.
*
The defeat was a bitter disappointment to much of the legal community here, which rallied behind the justices, and it was viewed with particular concern in the gay community, which has found state courts more sympathetic than state legislatures.

*

History will probably view these three justices as heroes who risked their careers to do the right thing. Ms. Gallagher, et al, in contrast will probably be looked upon with horror and contempt by future generations and be vilified as champions of hate and bigotry. I hope her descendants and relatives feel the need to hide some day because of her foul and hateful actions denigrating the lives of others.