Wednesday, November 3, 2010

I wonder if the three justices will find a right for them to sit on the court...

I love justices who say the constitution says something but they can't show it in the text...Roe vs Wade anyone. But that's another thought for another day.

These three justices "found" a right for same sex couples to marry in Iowa's Constitution. Of course they cannot show where the constitution of mentions same sex marriage, but they are geniuses and they will not be questioned. 

Fortunately there is a way for rogue justices to be held to account in the state.
Iowans dismiss three justices desmoinesregister.com The Des Moines Register
Three Iowa Supreme Court justices lost their seats Tuesday in a historic upset fueled by their 2009 decision that allowed same-sex couples to marry.


Vote totals from 96 percent of Iowa's 1,774 precincts showed Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit with less than the simple majority needed to stay on the bench.


Their removal marked the first time an Iowa Supreme Court justice has not been retained since 1962, when the merit selection and retention system for judges was adopted.


..."It appears we're headed for a resounding victory tonight and a historic moment in the state of Iowa," said Bob Vander Plaats, the Sioux City businessman who led a campaign to remove the justices because of the 2009 gay marriage ruling. "The people of Iowa stood up in record numbers and sent a message ... that it is 'We the people,' not 'We the courts.' "


In a statement issued early today, the three justices said: "We hope Iowans will continue to support Iowa's merit selection system for appointing judges. This system helps ensure that judges base their decisions on the law and the Constitution and nothing else. Ultimately, however, the preservation of our state's fair and impartial courts will require more than the integrity and fortitude of individual judges, it will require the steadfast support of the people."
Excuse me, your decision was outside of the "law and the Constitution and nothing else".  If you had used that you would have told the plaintiffs in the case this is not applicable as there is no right to marry.  And you would have your jobs. 
Not everyone agreed with Vander Plaats or the majority of voters.


"In the end, the aggressive campaign to misuse the judicial retention vote, funded by out-of-state special interests, has succeeded," Drake University Law School Dean Allan Vestal said. "The loss of these three justices is most unfortunate, and the damage to our judicial system and the merit selection of judges will take much to repair."


...Iowa's seven justices declared that a law barring same-sex marriage violated the constitution's equal-protection rights of gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry...

...Two Polk County judges who faced retention challenges survived with more than 60 percent of the vote, as did all of their colleagues at Iowa's largest courthouse.


Judge Robert Hanson, who sided with six same-sex couples in the Polk County District Court ruling, was retained with 66 percent support once all precincts were counted. Polk County District Judge Scott Rosenberg, targeted in a last-minute automated phone campaign for signing one gay couple's marriage waiver, kept his seat on the bench with 69 percent.


Hanson said he was elated and grateful for the support of Polk County voters but was disturbed by the loss of the three justices.


"I'm very, very thankful for the support, and for (voters') apparent appreciation of the proper functions of the judiciary," Hanson said...
The voters do judge.  A judge is supposed to judge to constitutionally of a law or other issue, or see if confirms with the law.  It is not to "find law" or in the infamous words of the junior associate justices of the US Supreme Court, "make policy".  If the Constitution is silent you defer to the legislative or executive branch

...Iowans interviewed at polling stations based their votes heavily on the gay marriage ruling.


...Bernie Noel of Bloomfield said he had never voted "no" on a justice until Tuesday. The 43-year-old said he opted to retain his local district court judges, who "do a great job, and are good people." But the gay marriage ruling swayed him against the justices.


"I don't think they should have the power to change the constitution and take things into their own hands," Noel said. "It's a hard job to do, but here, in this case, I just really think they overstepped their bounds."

And yes, these judges overstepped their bounds.  I wonder if having a similar requirement for federal judges will help, e.g require each judge/justice to have Senate reconfirmation every ten years.  It may lead to them knowing the final authority  in a republic is the law and the people, not their screwed up ideas. 

1 comment:

  1. It's also very cool that Oklahomans(?) have voted for a law that DISallows judges from using international law and Sharia law in their decision making.

    ReplyDelete