Voter Turnout In Iowa Expected To Be 52 Percent

There are big races on the ballot in Iowa, but that doesn't mean that turnout will be big, too.

[West Des Moines]

No
No
No

[HIGHWAY 420]

West Des Moines wrote:

No
No
No

Voting out the judges for doing their job will change nothing, chances are the new judges will still follow the constitution. You going to be the first to attempt a constitutional amendment? While you're at it maybe you could have them put in something to jail or deport illegal immigrants? At least then it would do some good for our state.

[Tim]

Yes, NO is the way to vote. I also voted for the Black Guy. I hope he wins. I'm guessing we will have a very liberal governor. I can live with that as long as the judges are gone.

[HIGHWAY 420]

Tim wrote:

Yes, NO is the way to vote. I also voted for the Black Guy. I hope he wins. I'm guessing we will have a very liberal governor. I can live with that as long as the judges are gone.

Thankfully your idiotic vote won't count. Are we talking about Narcisse? I would have voted for him myself, but he can't win. Both Braindead and Chester have to pay back the people who get them elected. You think it's you and me? You're wrong. It's the unions and such that swing elections. After all who spends that kind of money to get elected, they plan on stealing it back from us the taxpayers, and giving it to those who put them in office.

[West Des Moines]

Voting no will change something. Next time a big issue comes up, the judges will think twice about crossing the voters, and when the marriage ammendment comes up in 2014, We can have a better balance of Supreme Court Justices if we keep voting them out, because they will know what's coming if they go against the will of the people. The voters have the ability to fire the judges!

[hey]

HIGHWAY 420 wrote:

<quoted text>Thankfully your idiotic vote won't count. Are we talking about Narcisse? I would have voted for him myself, but he can't win. Both Braindead and Chester have to pay back the people who get them elected. You think it's you and me? You're wrong. It's the unions and such that swing elections. After all who spends that kind of money to get elected, they plan on stealing it back from us the taxpayers, and giving it to those who put them in office.

OK, you have a name with 4:20 in it, and your pic has a nun pullin on a bong. You know you preach about alternative lifestyles and in the next breath condemn them. Frankly I really don't care who marries who, but its likely that the justices who allowed same sex marriage are the very ones who are going to legalize Medicinal Marijuana.

[Tim]

West Des Moines wrote:

Voting no will change something. Next time a big issue comes up, the judges will think twice about crossing the voters, and when the marriage ammendment comes up in 2014, We can have a better balance of Supreme Court Justices if we keep voting them out, because they will know what's coming if they go against the will of the people. The voters have the ability to fire the judges!

Problem is Brandstad will appoint more liberal judges like he has always done. He appointed Turnus. You are correct though, that we just need to keep voting them out.

[Bethany]

HIGHWAY 420 wrote:

<quoted text>Voting out the judges for doing their job will change nothing, chances are the new judges will still follow the constitution. You going to be the first to attempt a constitutional amendment? While you're at it maybe you could have them put in something to jail or deport illegal immigrants? At least then it would do some good for our state.

Just an FYI- we get to vote. There is a reason we get to vote for or against retaining them. It's our right. If people don't like the way they are "interpreting the constitution" (which is the Judge's job) then they have the right to vote them out. And yes, someone may come in with the same views, and then they can get voted out also. And again and again. I'm not saying I'm for or against retention, I'm just saying it's the right of the people to choose if they stay or not. It doesn't matter if you want to vote yes or no, it's in the Constitution, it's the right and choice of the people.
It is just a bit of a stretch to go from kicking someone out of office to throwing them in jail. That's like adding 1+1 and getting 15.

[Stodd]

I voted no on the judges and voted no on brandstand..good luck Chet !

[Yessir]

West Des Moines wrote:

Voting no will change something. Next time a big issue comes up, the judges will think twice about crossing the voters, and when the marriage ammendment comes up in 2014, We can have a better balance of Supreme Court Justices if we keep voting them out, because they will know what's coming if they go against the will of the people. The voters have the ability to fire the judges!

You bet. We don't want them acting in accordance with the law and the constitution when they can act in accordance with a raving mob of imbeciles!

[Outsider]

Ysssir: Your comment would not be quite as meaningless if your state wasn’t such a train wreck!!!!

[Yessir]

Outsider wrote:

Ysssir: Your comment would not be quite as meaningless if your state wasn’t such a train wreck!!!!

Hmmmmm....never assume the the location is where the comments coming from. I'm as Iowan as tube tops and tatoos at the state fair.

[Tim]

You can take your San Fancisco gayness and keep it in California. We don't need your ilk in Iowa. We'll vote you out just like the judges. When did being a pervert make you a protected minority?