Oh, Iowa wingnuts, you can always relied upon to, upon failing, find a new way to FAIL HARDER. Conservatives in the Iowa House have decided that they’re not done trying to punish the judges who (unanimously!) ruled for marriage equality. They were successful for five whole seconds when they ousted three of the judges in 2010, but that’s because they were still riding the wave of wingnut Two Minutes Hate that came from the ruling in 2009. Efforts to get rid of the remaining justices have been met with unanimous fail:
Then Iowa anti-gay leader Bob Vander Plaats called for the remaining justices to resign. When that didn’t work, state Republicans then tried to impeach them. Last year, an effort to remove a fourth justice failed at the ballot box.
So what is their new stupid idea? Here is their new stupid idea:
A handful of House conservatives want to reduce the pay of Iowa Supreme Court justices involved in a 2009 decision striking down a ban on same-sex marriages as part of an effort to maintain the balance of power in state government.
“It’s our responsibility to maintain the balance of power” between the three co-equal branches of government, Rep. Tom Shaw, R-Laurens, said Tuesday.
The justices “trashed the separation of powers” with their unanimous Varnum v. Brien decision and implementation of same-sex marriage without a change in state law banning any marriages expect between one man and one woman, added Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull.
Their amendment to House File 120, the judicial branch budget bill, would lower the salaries of the four justices on the seven-member court who were part of the unanimous Varnum v. Brein decision to $25,000 – the same as a state legislator.
It’s not meant to be punitive, Alons and Shaw said Tuesday.
“We’re just holding them responsible for their decision, for going beyond their bounds,” Shaw said.
Haha, and can this work? Take it away, Snipy at Wonkette:
Yes, the best way to ensure separation of powers is for your pissant legislature to call the wahmbulance every time the judicial branch does something they do not like. That is exactly what the founding fathers said, we think? Isn’t it in the Bill of Rights as Amendment Eleventy?
Lest you think this is an isolated bit of spittle-flecked anger over homosexcellence…
Moment of silence for the most amazing word I have ever heard. [Takes a moment.]
Moving forward:
In case your devious mind works like ours and you are thinking “Wait? Is this a genius plan, or the genius-est plan, because the judges whose pay you lowered would have to recuse themselves when the case came before the Supreme Court and then victory?” NOPE, sez the comments to Iowa court rules:
“The rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification. For example, a judge might be required to participate in judicial review of a judicial salary statute…”
Oh well, Iowa GOP. Better luck next time! Perhaps you can just start outright threatening the justices’ wives or offspring or pets or something until you get your way. That’s probably totally legal, so give it a shot.
Better luck next time indeed. Better luck failing more.
I’m reminded of that old Voltaire quote about praying to God that our enemies would be ridiculous, and God answering that prayer with an affirmative “LOL.”
