# Unseating Judges who Legalized SSM in Iowa **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 30, 2010, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894 "2010-10-30T18:01:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/41 "2010-11-04T16:37:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Who is misinterpreting it? DC, or the Ninth Circuit? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > DC. And I assume your answer will be the same if the Supreme Court affirms DC and overturns the Ninth, yes? I mean, how could it be otherwise? According to you, since 1789 the Fourth Amendment has said that the government could put GPS devices in cars without a warrant, so if the Supreme Court rules differently, they are misinterpreting it - correct? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/42 "2010-11-04T16:37:51Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > No they didn’t. You’re wrong. You’re welcome to your opinion. I’m sure you’re very happy with those election results then. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/43 "2010-11-04T16:39:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And I assume your answer will be the same if the Supreme Court affirms DC and overturns the Ninth, yes? It won’t. > [@](#): > > I mean, how could it be otherwise? According to you, since 1789 the Fourth Amendment has said that the government could put GPS devices in cars without a warrant, so if the Supreme Court rules differently, they are misinterpreting it - correct? Correct. That’s why they won’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/44 "2010-11-04T16:39:38Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > What I, personally, believe? Yes it does. > > But as you note, the Supreme Court has yet to rule of the issue. If it does, regardless of the decision, I wouldn’t rend my garments crying “Why? How? The Constitution is OLD! How could we have a Constitutional mandate of GPS from before it was invented and surely these activist judges have no right to mandate what should be the role of Congress! Clearly the whole system is out of order!” Sure. But you might look at the analytical method they used to reach their decision, and decide for yourself if it was a valid one, and resolve to appoint other judges who also use that analytical method… and resolve to NOT appoint judges that used other analytical methods… right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/45 "2010-11-04T16:45:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And I assume your answer will be the same if the Supreme Court affirms DC and overturns the Ninth, yes? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It won’t. > [@Bricker](#): > > I mean, how could it be otherwise? According to you, since 1789 the Fourth Amendment has said that the government could put GPS devices in cars without a warrant, so if the Supreme Court rules differently, they are misinterpreting it - correct? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Correct. That’s why they won’t. Whew. Well, that’s a load off my mind, especially since they’re likely to grant cert because of the conflict in circuits. But we cannot, I assume, read into what you’ve written here the idea that the Supreme Court never misinterprets the Constitution… right? I mean, they said in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick that the Constitution (text written in 1867) DID NOT protect the right of two adults to engage in consensual, non-commercial sodomy. That was a misinterpretation, because in 2003 they said in Lawrence v. Texas that the Constitution (text still written in 1867) DID protect the right of two adults to engage in consensual, non-commercial sodomy. Or was Lawrence the misinterpretation? So how are we to tell if, for any given decision, the Supreme Court misinterpreted the Constitution? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/46 "2010-11-04T16:50:27Z")
Yes, the Supreme Court _can_ misinterpret law (“ceremonial deism”), I just don’t think it will in this case. Just because I said that one court interpreted a law correctly doesn’t mean that I think all courts always do. That court _in Iowa_ did not create law. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/47 "2010-11-04T16:59:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. But you might look at the analytical method they used to reach their decision, and decide for yourself if it was a valid one, and resolve to appoint other judges who also use that analytical method… and resolve to NOT appoint judges that used other analytical methods… right? Well, assuming Supreme Court judges could be voted out. But the point you’re trying to refute isn’t one I’ve been making. My point was that 1. You can vote to not retain a judge because he doesn’t understand the law, or fails to follow proper criminal or civil procedure, or has a huge backlog of cases due directly to his incompetance at handling them, or any of a number of other rationales that go directly to his competance at doing the job to which he was appointed. But to do so because you don’t happen to like an opinion that he was fully authorized to make? Well, I don’t really accept that as qualified objection. Because to do so, you really start to politicize the judicial branch and I’d like my judges to make decisions based upon the law, not popular opinion. And 1. Occam’s Razor. Dude, Occam’s Razor. I’m sure there are some thoughtful, analytical, and rational voters out there. Never once did I say or believe otherwise. But you just cannot escape the fact that the most likely reason these three judges were voted out was because the voters were bigots and hate Teh Gay. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/48 "2010-11-04T17:07:58Z")
Hate and bigotry have no better ally here than **Bricker** , who keeps essentially arguing that the Iowa Supreme Court had no right, or _should_ not have the right, to reach a decision based on the straightforward reading of the state’s constitution if that decision changes the status quo in any significant way. What an obscene and utterly wrong-headed legal rationalization for willful injustice! **It is unequivocally evil and flagrantly repudiative of the founders’ manifest will to allow people to vote on granting or removing the civil rights of any group of American citizens!** It is as depraved and repulsive a crime against America and American ideals as any I can imagine, yet **Bricker** and **JXJohns** openly endorse precisely that! Consider the disingenuous con job **Bricker** delivers in his response to **Zakalwe’s** hypothetical regarding a vote denying left-handed people the right to vote: > [@Bricker](#): > > … [Y]ou’re touting a dramatic change, and the aggrieved people in your hypothetical are hurt by the change. They would ask the court not to make an unheard of change for their benefit, but to restore the previous status quo. > > So to answer your particular example: the left-handers should go to court and ask the court to review that law as violative of the Equal Protection Clause, and evaluate the law under a rational basis standard. > > But when they do that, they are not asking the court to create a new state of affair. They are asking the court to return the previous, long-standing state of affairs. > > In the Iowa case, the court was asked to do something new. It’s not ridiculous to say that such changes should come from the legislature, not the courts. Bricker’s “reasoning” is, of course, quite offensive and off-base. For the analogy to be applicable, the “previous, long-standing state of affairs” would have to be one in which **only** right-handed people could vote, and it is only to _that_ state of affairs that **Bricker** would grant the court the right to decide. Note also the reference there to the “rational basis standard” of reviewing Equal Protection cases. Bricker and other defenders of bigotry prefer that standard over heightened standards because it allows bigots to prevail far more easily. This is because under that standard, if the court can imagine _any_ marginally “rational” hypothetical justification for the legislature’s decision to discriminate against a given group – even if the legislature never even _imagined it_ – the discriminatory statute prevails. Bricker and JXJohns and others who agree with them are being manifestly contemptuous of our ideals and system of government. No matter how much they dance around it, in the end they are flagrantly perverting the role of the third branch in the United States into passivity and impotence by arguing that the courts have **no right** to rule on the constitutionality of legislation if the decision might have non-trivial real-world consequences, such as if it invalidates a bigoted law. Be not deceived: Those who argue thus do so because they know perfectly well that voters are easily manipulated into voting for evil and hate and bigotry, whereas judges are not quite so easily moved. **JXJohns** made this point quite openly when he wrote: > [@JXJohns](#): > > … If there was ever a case study tailor made for whether campaigns and campaign ads work, it’s this one. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/49 "2010-11-04T17:32:26Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Yes, the Supreme Court _can_ misinterpret law (“ceremonial deism”), I just don’t think it will in this case. > > Just because I said that one court interpreted a law correctly doesn’t mean that I think all courts always do. That court _in Iowa_ did not create law. OK. So how can we determine this difference? How can we, the public, know that the text of the Constitution says, and has always said, XYZ? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/50 "2010-11-04T17:41:03Z")
By reading it. ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/51 "2010-11-04T17:52:54Z")
**Bricker** , congratulations on your fine disassembling of \*\*Dio \*\*above. That said, I should like to pose a question to you employing the principles you establish above, to wit, that Supreme Court judges as a rule have a greater understanding of the law than most common people–or even most attorneys. Let us assume (and despite **JXJohns** ’s protests, I think we safely can) that Ternus, _et al_, were unseated because of their participation in Varnum v. Brien . Given that Varnum v. Brien was a unanimous, 7-0 decision, and thus by reasonable definition sound law, is it reasonable to assume that the Iowa electorate, consisting almost entirely of persons untrained in the law, really didn’t understand the issues involved and were voting in an ignorant, ill-informed manner? Or, more charitably, did the Iowa electorate display a flagrant disregard for the existing legal system? I’d conclude that it’s pretty evident the Iowa electorate didn’t understand the law, didn’t really give a damn, and unseated the judges because they didn’t want gay folks to be able to get married. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/52 "2010-11-04T18:20:39Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > **It is unequivocally evil and flagrantly repudiative of the founders’ manifest will to allow people to vote on granting or removing the civil rights of any group of American citizens!** It is as depraved and repulsive a crime against America and American ideals as any I can imagine, yet **Bricker** and **JXJohns** openly endorse precisely that… Ummm you read how I voted and why, correct? You also know enough about the situation that nobody voted away anyone’s civil rights, correct? ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/53 "2010-11-04T18:26:09Z")
> [@StusBlues](#): > > **Bricker** , congratulations on your fine disassembling of \*\*Dio \*\*above. > > That said, I should like to pose a question to you employing the principles you establish above, to wit, that Supreme Court judges as a rule have a greater understanding of the law than most common people–or even most attorneys. > > Let us assume (and despite **JXJohns** ’s protests, I think we safely can) that Ternus, _et al_, were unseated because of their participation in Varnum v. Brien . I made no protest, only stating why I think Ternus was unfit for the position of Chief Justice. A point that I have not heard anyone argue against. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/54 "2010-11-04T18:26:11Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > Hate and bigotry have no better ally here than **Bricker** , who keeps essentially arguing that the Iowa Supreme Court had no right, or _should_ not have the right, to reach a decision based on the straightforward reading of the state’s constitution if that decision changes the status quo in any significant way. What an obscene and utterly wrong-headed legal rationalization for willful injustice! This is what your argument boils down to. It’s not enough that someone disagrees – not even enough that someone agrees with the ultimate goal but disagrees as to method. No, no – it’s all hate and bigotry, obscene and wrong-headed wilful injustice. > [@](#): > > **It is unequivocally evil and flagrantly repudiative of the founders’ manifest will to allow people to vote on granting or removing the civil rights of any group of American citizens!** It is as depraved and repulsive a crime against America and American ideals as any I can imagine, yet **Bricker** and **JXJohns** openly endorse precisely that! Bullshit. The most basic will of the founders is: “We The People.” This embodies our notion that ultimately the sovereigns of our country are not kings, divinely annointed to rule, but the collective voice of the people. WE THE PEOPLE are our own rulers. Every single piece of text that governs us is traced to an assent by the people, directly or through their elected representatives. But you would have it differently. You would surrender our ability to govern ourselves to philosopher kings; you would give them a mission of protecting us from ourselves. “We’re too stupid to rule ourselves,” says **Ambushed** , “so please take the authority from us.” THAT is the depraved and repulsive a crime against America and American ideals. While we place obstacles in our legislative path, such as supermajorities, we do so with our own full assent. But in the end, the Constitution and every word in in is subject to the vote of the people. When the Constitution permitted slavery, we did not turn to judges and say, “Please, worthy judges, slavery is repulsive, but we lack the strength to undo it. Save us from ourselves!” **Ambushed** , undoubtedly, would still be on his knees in front of his Kings-on-the-bench, awaiting salvation. But people who actually understand what the true American spirit of We the People means approved the Thirteenth Amendment, forbidding slavery. It was ratified by 3/4s of the states after passing two-thirds of Congress. That ended slavery. But some states still sought to leave former slaves unable to vote. “Please, worthy judges, this disenfranchisement is repulsive, but we lack the strength to undo it. Save us from ourselves!” cried **Ambushed** ’s ideological brethern. But We The People knew that to be true to American ideals meant passing the Fifteenth Amendment, prohibiting race as a means to deny the vote. “Please, worthy judges,” ried **Ambushed** ’s ideological brethern again in 1918, “this disenfranchisement of women is repulsive, but we lack the strength to undo it. Save us from ourselves!” But the judges, the kings, were not the way to solve that problem. No, We the People used our sovereign power to pass the Nineteenth Amendment. Your base, craven willingness to surrender our sovereign power to the judges is sickening. We have the power and the responsibility to govern ourselves. There’s no question that we should end discrimination and permit same-sex marriage. But we should – we MUST – do it by vote. And don’t you dare whine that we can’t. We have. Vermont, New Hampshire and DC have both passed, by legislature, bills legalizing same-sex marriage. It can be done. It WILL be done. But not by pusillanimous appeal to some benevolent philosopher king. And if you don’t like the sensible ideological arguments against that, let me give you a practical one: when you try to shove things down the throats of the voters by judicial fiat, it often backfires. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/55 "2010-11-04T18:27:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK. > > So how can we determine this difference? How can we, the public, know that the text of the Constitution says, and has always said, XYZ? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > By reading it. But two different people can read it, and come to opposite conclusions. What then? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/56 "2010-11-04T18:32:58Z")
> [@StusBlues](#): > > **Bricker** , congratulations on your fine disassembling of \*\*Dio \*\*above. Thanks. **Dio** , like the berserkers of old, won’t notice a fatal wound and will continue to fight on, but it’s safe to say he’s skewered. > [@](#): > > Given that Varnum v. Brien was a unanimous, 7-0 decision, and thus by reasonable definition sound law, is it reasonable to assume that the Iowa electorate, consisting almost entirely of persons untrained in the law, really didn’t understand the issues involved and were voting in an ignorant, ill-informed manner? Or, more charitably, did the Iowa electorate display a flagrant disregard for the existing legal system? > > I’d conclude that it’s pretty evident the Iowa electorate didn’t understand the law, didn’t really give a damn, and unseated the judges because they didn’t want gay folks to be able to get married. I absolutely agree that the vast majority of Iowans did not make a detailed analysis of the law. BUT… I also say that many of them simply said to themselves, “I don’t know about the law, but I know that this is a big change in this state, and big changes should come from the legislature.” As I said above, this is a position that intuitively makes sense. If judges are supposed to interpret the law as written, and the written law hasn’t changed, how could it possibly be true that suddenly, 164 years after Iowa’s constitution was written, it becomes true that it requires same-sex marriage? If this is simply the straightforward application of Iowa’s constitutional commands to the situation, how could it possibly have taken this long? So I’d say that a fair chunk of those voters had no animus towards gays getting married, but didn’t like the idea that judges took it upon themselves to make the decision for them. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/57 "2010-11-04T18:34:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So it seems we have these options, unless there’s another I’m missing: > > 1. You argue that no reasonable person could have said, “Iowa’s equal protection clause should be read as coextensive with the federal constitution’s, and _Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning_ controls, so I don’t want to retain those judges.” > > 2. You argue that no reasonable person could have said, “I don’t know about all that law mumbo-jumbo, but I do know that for decisions like this, I want them to come from legislature, not judges, so I don’t want to retain those judges.” > > 3. You argue that a reasonable person COULD have said #1, or #2, but that this particular bunch of Iowa voters (or all voters) did not; _en masse_ they were motivated solely by bigotry. > > Is there another option? Or does one of those capture the essence of your argument? **Bricker** , I never questioned your very considerable skills in verbal manipulations and misdirections and in crafting deviously impostrous “summaries” of people’s arguments. Your years of practicing law very likely drew upon and then only heightened such skills, and, truth be told, I’d jump at the chance to hire you to represent me in court if I were guilty. As I once wrote years back of another attorney whom I found to be immensely skilled in verbal combat, I opined that he “could convince a drowning man to change his long-distance service on the way to the bottom”. I’m afraid that none of your summaries accurately reflect my post that you are responding to. Science has demonstrated quite unassailably that humans emote first and verbally rationalize their emotions later; it is quite unusual for people to engage in the kind of critical thinking necessary to countermand their overwhelmingly emotion-driven decisions. Most people just aren’t cut out for it, especially conservatives-authoritarians whose impaired cognition and discomfort with nuance and subtlety make critical thinking a truly daunting, herculean task. (See, for example: Hetherington & Weiler 2009: _Authoritarianism & Polarization in American Politics_, Cambridge University Press). I did not claim in my post anything akin to asserting that not one single person who voted against the Iowa Supreme Court judges engaged in any critical thinking first. That is a grotesque misrepresentation of what I wrote. Clearly, I will have to quote my own words rather than allow you to summarize them: > [@ambushed](#): > > … **My objection is to the extreme degree of political denialism all around us, in all kinds of media, which pretends that the average American voter – even those on the Right – made some kind of informed, rational decision before casting their ballot.** Bricker’s words here are merely just another example of such blithely delusional thinking… Perhaps I should have underlined that word in the original. Science tells us it is entirely natural and instinctive for the human mind to invent high-minded rationalizations to disguise or justify fear, hate, and bigotry. That’s all that you and **JXJohns** and the Iowa Family Policy Center and those who voted out the Iowa Supreme Court have done: You’ve crafted utterly spurious rationalizations to defend bigotry by flatly denying the primary role of the state’s Supreme Court. And I honestly believe you should be profoundly ashamed of that. I’ve been around here since just about the beginning, and in that time you have earned my respect many thousands of times. I don’t know if I was fooled many of those times or if this thread represents some kind of aberration, but I am entirely sincere when I say that I very much hope for the latter. But given the blatant viciousness of the closing shot in your reply, to wit… > [@Bricker](#): > > So the solution, it seems, is to register even more voters, concentrating especially on poor, inner-city voters, because those are the sorts of voters that usually have the best understanding of the issues. Or.. no? … the odds that this thread doesn’t represent the real you seem increasingly remote. ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/58 "2010-11-04T18:41:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As I said above, this is a position that intuitively makes sense. Really? > [@](#): > > If judges are supposed to interpret the law as written, and the written law hasn’t changed, how could it possibly be true that suddenly, 164 years after Iowa’s constitution was written, it becomes true that it requires same-sex marriage? If this is simply the straightforward application of Iowa’s constitutional commands to the situation, how could it possibly have taken this long? Two points: 1. Had the Iowa court ever considered same-sex marriage before? 2. If your position is that judgements should only change \*de facto \*law when statutory or constitutional law itself changes, would you then also argue that \*Brown vs. Board of Education \*is bad case law? If not, what changes between _Plessy vs Ferguson_ and \*Brown \*made this so? > [@](#): > > So I’d say that a fair chunk of those voters had no animus towards gays getting married, but didn’t like the idea that judges took it upon themselves to make the decision for them. I live about ten miles from Iowa. Let’s just say you may be overestimating their electorate by just a bit. Then again, I really don’t think South Carolina seceded from the union over Article VI, either. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/59 "2010-11-04T18:42:35Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > …Science tells us it is entirely natural and instinctive for the human mind to invent high-minded rationalizations to disguise or justify fear, hate, and bigotry. That’s all that you and **JXJohns** and the Iowa Family Policy Center and those who voted out the Iowa Supreme Court have done: You’ve crafted utterly spurious rationalizations to defend bigotry by flatly denying the primary role of the state’s Supreme Court. Lot of words being used to misstate my position. I’m impressed. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/60 "2010-11-04T18:43:34Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > Most people just aren’t cut out for it, especially conservatives-authoritarians whose impaired cognition and discomfort with nuance and subtlety make critical thinking a truly daunting, herculean task. (See, for example: Hetherington & Weiler 2009: _Authoritarianism & Polarization in American Politics_, Cambridge University Press). Not sure what to do with this. Are you suggesting that, as a matter of objective fact, we should ascribe better critical thinking skill to those who vote Democratic? I hope not. I did not claim in my post anything akin to asserting that not one single person who voted against the Iowa Supreme Court judges engaged in any critical thinking first. That is a grotesque misrepresentation of what I wrote. Clearly, I will have to quote my own words rather than allow you to summarize them: Perhaps I should have underlined that word in the original. > [@](#): > > … My objection is to the extreme degree of political denialism all around us, in all kinds of media, which pretends that the average American voter – even those on the Right – made some kind of informed, rational decision before casting their ballot. Bricker’s words here are merely just another example of such blithely delusional thinking… Your point seems plain. The average American voter does not make informed, rational decisions before casting their ballot. Yes? So my response to you is: if this is so, what value is there is making an effort to register more voters? It seems intuitively obvious that someone who goes out of his way to register to vote is, at the very least, not less likely to make informed, rational decisions before casting his ballot. Right? Yet the left is strongly focused on registering many people to vote, people who don’t seem to me to be displaying any indicators that they would be any more likely than not to make informed, rational decisions before casting their ballot. So – what am I missing? Explain it to me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894.md?page=4)