3 Iowa Supreme Courst Justices Voted Out

[rushmc 23]

because of the new law they created in Iowa regarding same sex marriages

Good riddance.

By the way, regardless of my opposition to same sex marriage, I voted no because them thumbing their noses at the state Constitution. How you say? There is still no law on the books in IA that allow same sex marriage. It was created by court order. Courts can not create law.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101103/NEWS09/11030390/-1/NEWS04/Iowans-dismiss-three-justices

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tkhayes 348]

Courts rule on the interpretation of law, they do not create laws. No law was created by any court order in Iowa. But the rights of the people WERE actually upheld by their ruling.

There is a difference.

Germany 'voted' out the Jews in 1935-1939 and began getting rid of them. Just because it is a popular vote does not make it a 'right' one.

Let's trample all ove the Constitution once again and let's dismiss the Supreme Court AND the Constitution when we disagree with them - that's a great way to run a country.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Courts rule on the interpretation of law, they do not create laws. No law was created by any court order in Iowa. But the rights of the people WERE actually upheld by their ruling.

There is a difference.

Germany 'voted' out the Jews in 1935-1939 and began getting rid of them. Just because it is a popular vote does not make it a 'right' one.

Let's trample all ove the Constitution once again and let's dismiss the Supreme Court AND the Constitution when we disagree with them - that's a great way to run a country.

Not true
The states constitution define marrage as between a man and a women. These justices are required to follow the constitution. They can hear arguments about intepitations of it but they are bound by it and can not change it.

The US Supreme court could but not the iowa justices

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tkhayes 348]

and the court is allowed to strike down the constitution - i.e. if the constitution allowed for slavery for example.

That does not 'write laws', it rules on the ones that exist.

Obviously they felt there is/was a conflict between human rights/freedoms and the part about defining marriage. Good for them

If legislators cannot write good laws, the Judicial Branch is there to protect all of us and shame on anyone who thinks that is a bad idea.....

[rhaig 0]

I'd just like to point out that you appear to talking about the US constitution while he is talking about the IA state constitution.

--
Rob

[rushmc 23]

Quote

and the court is allowed to strike down the constitution - i.e. if the constitution allowed for slavery for example.

That does not 'write laws', it rules on the ones that exist.

Obviously they felt there is/was a conflict between human rights/freedoms and the part about defining marriage. Good for them

If legislators cannot write good laws, the Judicial Branch is there to protect all of us and shame on anyone who thinks that is a bad idea.....

The courts are bound by the Constitution they uphold. They can not change that

Laws are judged against the Constitution. To do anything other than that is chaos

But I know many liberals see the Constitution as a block to their euphoric visions

Anybody who thinks a court can write a constitution supports a bad idea

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wayneflorida 0]

Quote

and the court is allowed to strike down the constitution - i.e. if the constitution allowed for slavery for example.

That does not 'write laws', it rules on the ones that exist.

Obviously they felt there is/was a conflict between human rights/freedoms and the part about defining marriage. Good for them

If legislators cannot write good laws, the Judicial Branch is there to protect all of us and shame on anyone who thinks that is a bad idea.....

Poof, there goes my freedom of speech. Oh well, five black robe people in the whole US population know best.

[wmw999 2,461]

Quote

Oh well, five black robe people in the whole US population know best

That's how the Constitution set it up.

Of course, for them to have to decide it takes a whole lot of effort.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

The states constitution define marrage as between a man and a women.

I don't think that's correct. There was an Iowa statute that defined marriage that way, which the Iowa SC ruled unconstitutional; which, in turn, is why the Iowa voters fired them.

My quick search of articles and online glance at the Iowa constitution resulted in nothing that indicates that Iowa's current constitution contains a definition of marriage. In fact, just the opposite: here are links to a number of recent articles about how Iowa Catholics are currently seeking to amend the Iowa constitution to have exactly that definition of marriage:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,17315,18168,23628,23670,25227,26637,26761,26849,26869,27126,27219,27357&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=iowa+constitution+marriage+man+woman+catholics&cp=46&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=iowa+constitution+marriage+man+woman+catholics&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=2304850557947867

If I'm factually incorrect about this, I'll stand corrected. Please advise.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

and the court is allowed to strike down the constitution

I agree with most of your perspective on this, TK; but this is not correct. State courts in the US really cannot strike down provisions of their states' constitutions, unless it can be established that the constitutional provision itself was not enacted according to proper procedure (which means virtually never). Same goes for the US SC re: the US Constitution. Technically, I suppose the US Sup Ct has the power to strike a provision of a state's constitution on the grounds that it violates either federal law or the US Constitution; but outside of past issues like slavery or civil rights, that's a pretty unlikely event.

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

which, in turn, is why the Iowa voters fired them.

So, the three made a decision, and the people didn't like it, so they sent them a message in the form of voting them out.

That does not sound like the people voted against gays, or tried to vote gays out.

It sounds like the people voted them out because they didn't like something being shoved down their throats, and dissaproved of the procedures that the people felt were diregarded or ignored to fit the agenda.

Sound Familiar?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[popsjumper 2]

Three cheers for Iowa voters!!!!!

People who actually stood up for their beliefs!

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[davjohns 1]

Courts do not get to make law. They do not get to judge the law against moral values, human rights, or any other extralegal standards. They have to judge it by the higher laws of the government which they are a part of.

I know some of you will dispute this because you don't like it. It is still so. In fact, our early US Supreme Court would refuse to rule on certain matters because they were non-justiciable. Modern courts like to pretend nothing is non-justiciable and they are the ultimate arbiters and holders of wisdom. Those kinds of people scare me more than anything.

If it helps any, I just renewed my license to practice law. I've studied this once or twice. It's not just my political/philosophical position.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

which, in turn, is why the Iowa voters fired them.

So, the three made a decision, and the people didn't like it, so they sent them a message in the form of voting them out.

That does not sound like the people voted against gays, or tried to vote gays out.

It sounds like the people voted them out because they didn't like something being shoved down their throats, and dissaproved of the procedures that the people felt were diregarded or ignored to fit the agenda.

Sound Familiar?

First and foremost a vote on process? No. Human nature is to champion one's philosophy first, and then rationalize the process issues to fit the philosophy. It sounded like the majority of voters casting a vote to reflect their philosophy, which is what a free democratic process is all about.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

The states constitution define marrage as between a man and a women.

I don't think that's correct. There was an Iowa statute that defined marriage that way, which the Iowa SC ruled unconstitutional; which, in turn, is why the Iowa voters fired them.

My quick search of articles and online glance at the Iowa constitution resulted in nothing that indicates that Iowa's current constitution contains a definition of marriage. In fact, just the opposite: here are links to a number of recent articles about how Iowa Catholics are currently seeking to amend the Iowa constitution to have exactly that definition of marriage:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,17315,18168,23628,23670,25227,26637,26761,26849,26869,27126,27219,27357&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=iowa+constitution+marriage+man+woman+catholics&cp=46&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=iowa+constitution+marriage+man+woman+catholics&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=2304850557947867

If I'm factually incorrect about this, I'll stand corrected. Please advise.

I will look into it and reply

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

The states constitution define marrage as between a man and a women.

I don't think that's correct. There was an Iowa statute that defined marriage that way, which the Iowa SC ruled unconstitutional; which, in turn, is why the Iowa voters fired them.

My quick search of articles and online glance at the Iowa constitution resulted in nothing that indicates that Iowa's current constitution contains a definition of marriage. In fact, just the opposite: here are links to a number of recent articles about how Iowa Catholics are currently seeking to amend the Iowa constitution to have exactly that definition of marriage:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,17315,18168,23628,23670,25227,26637,26761,26849,26869,27126,27219,27357&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=iowa+constitution+marriage+man+woman+catholics&cp=46&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=iowa+constitution+marriage+man+woman+catholics&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=2304850557947867

If I'm factually incorrect about this, I'll stand corrected. Please advise.

It appears to me this is the sataute so you would be correct.

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/IACODE/1999/595/

But also notice that it has not changed

This is where the other side of the argument comes into play

As of present, there is no law on the books in Iowa that states marriage is anything other than one between a man and women. The marriages are being preformed based on a court order and the gov ordering the clerks to give them licienses

It is a mess

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

Three cheers for Iowa voters!!!!!

People who actually stood up for their beliefs!

They, like you, are on the wrong side of history on this one.

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[wmw999 2,461]

The court gets to decide whether statutes are constitutional or not.

What is your personal objection to same-gender marriage? I don't mean "it's against the law" kind of stuff, but what you think is wrong with it?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The court gets to decide whether statutes are constitutional or not.

What is your personal objection to same-gender marriage? I don't mean "it's against the law" kind of stuff, but what you think is wrong with it?

Wendy P.

Marriage is between a man and a women

I have no problem with same sex civil unions

To push a point or agenda a tradition does not need to be destroyed unles there is more to it



which there obviously must be

And yes courts can judge laws to be unconstitutional but they can not make law which is what they did in Iowa

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

...and the first person to say "Adam and Steve" gets my foot up his ass.

[davjohns 1]

I'm only going to refrain because I'm not fetishist. But someone is bound to PM you on that one if you are making a serious offer.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Three cheers for Iowa voters!!!!!

People who actually stood up for their beliefs!

They, like you, are on the wrong side of history on this one.

Huh?????
You have a problem with people standing up for their beliefs? I assume yours are different?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[livendive 8]

Quote

Three cheers for Iowa voters!!!!!

People who actually stood up for their beliefs!

Three cheers for those judges, who actually adjuticated with integrity, which is better than can be said for the Iowan voters in yesterday's elections.

Good law is often unpopular, and in elections, mobs rule. The hope is that sometimes the good outweighs the evil, and I'm confident that'll eventually be the case on this subject. Getting fired is small potato's compared to the hate crimes they might have been subjected to, given the nature of those opposing them.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

Getting fired is small potato's compared to the hate crimes they might have been subjected to, given the nature of those opposing them.

Blues,
Dave

[loumeinhart 0]

Wow this baby has stayed on track so far ... without drifting into a mudsling. Of course skyrider is not here yet