# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/101 "2010-11-05T22:21:47Z")
> [@Uncle\_Jocko](#): > > And as for giving Iowans the credit for thinking through their decision in this vote … by and large, Bricker, are you kidding me? Yes, I would say there is a non-zero number of Iowans who could defend their “No” votes on historical legal grounds, and some may even know some of these cases you refer to. But I’ve lived in Iowa for 44 of my 47 years. I know Iowa. The vast majority of the No voters have never even heard of any of these cases or arguments. They bought into the media blitz about “activist judges” “making law from the bench” “disregarding the will of the people.” As we’ve already discussed, judicial decisions should not be subject to the whim of the majority. Should the popular will wish to overturn such a ruling, there are avenues for that, such as constitutional amendments. Which makes it even funnier to notice that the wild-eyed, tantrum-throwing movement led by Vander Plaats forgot to notice the ballot item regarding a state constitutional convention, which goes before the voters every 10 years. If they’d spent their time and energy on getting a “Yes” vote on that, they could whip the state constitution to fit their ends probably pretty easily. I suppose it’s less of a hassle to whip people into a frenzy _ **against** _ something instead of _ **for** _ something. (By the way, Vander Plaats’ next move is apparently to ask the new/old Gov. Branstad to issue an executive order overruling the Varnum decision. Which every person I’ve heard of with any kind of legal experience whatever goggles at in disbelief and hysterical laughter, mocking its absolutely ridiculous unconstitutionality and complete disregard for separation of powers … but I’d give 'em about a 15 percent chance of Branstad actually doing it.) [/QUOTE] Agreed completely, except that I reach no particular decision about what percentage of Iowa voters had what particular levels of insight. I’m sure it’s small, but I’m not sure I’m willing to put the unthinking Iowans at “100% minus epsilon.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/102 "2010-11-05T22:28:07Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > By this (implied) logic\*, any decision the result of which was to overturn any long-standing interpetation of consitutional law, like say _Brown v. Board_, is wrong. Are you going to join with Rand Paul in condemning that judicial atrocity? Wrong implication. I was just locking **Diogenes** into an interpretation where he’d have to acknowledge that his “analysis” was simply “I’m right, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.” _MY_ answer is: of course same-sex marriage was not permitted by the Iowa constitution in 1864. The meaning of laws and constitutions change as caselaw develops. The authority for what each means at any given point is the court. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/103 "2010-11-05T23:46:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wrong implication. I was just locking **Diogenes** into an interpretation where he’d have to acknowledge that his “analysis” was simply “I’m right, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.” Congrats for breaking a story with about the same surprise factor as stories about the Pope being Catholic, bears defecating in woods, and the sky being blue. Where in the world would we have been without your penetrating insight into this issue? > [@](#): > > _MY_ answer is: of course same-sex marriage was not permitted by the Iowa constitution in 1864. The meaning of laws and constitutions change as caselaw develops. The authority for what each means at any given point is the court. And this is where you and I depart. My answer is: given the evident facts available today, the Iowa Constitution absolutely permitted same-sex marriage in 1864. It’s the evidence that has changed, not the document. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/104 "2010-11-06T01:15:38Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > Congrats for breaking a story with about the same surprise factor as stories about the Pope being Catholic, bears defecating in woods, and the sky being blue. Where in the world would we have been without your penetrating insight into this issue? > And this is where you and I depart. My answer is: given the evident facts available today, the Iowa Constitution absolutely permitted same-sex marriage in 1864. It’s the evidence that has changed, not the document. Really? Intermediate scrutiny existed in 1864? ---
**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 6, 2010, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/105 "2010-11-06T04:52:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wrong implication. I was just locking **Diogenes** into an interpretation where he’d have to acknowledge that his “analysis” was simply “I’m right, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.” In this case that would be accurate, but it’s also a fatuous point on your part, since all opinions are opinions. You are saying the same thing yourself. You’re saying that your opinion about the decision is right and everyone who disagrees with you (including thos judges with greater expertise than you who made the decision) are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/106 "2010-11-06T15:11:43Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You are saying the same thing yourself. You’re saying that your opinion about the decision is right and everyone who disagrees with you (including thos judges with greater expertise than you who made the decision) are wrong. No, I’m not. Like **RNTB** , you have apparently decided not to read my posts and just comment on what you think I might decide to say: > [@Bricker](#): > > My own personal opinion is that both are good law and correctly decided. _Brown_ because it correctly recognized that race was the primary motivating factor of the Fourteenth Amendment, and _Varnum_ because it applied intermediate scrutiny to the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/107 "2010-11-06T21:23:41Z")
Bricker, it is difficult to _scan_ your multiple posts on this thread and conclude that the proposition you are asserting is that the Iowa Supremes ruled correctly in the _Varnum_ case. In fact one may read your clarification as conceding only that the Iowa Supremes applied the correct standard of review. In terms of the character and intent of the leaders of the Anti-judge faction, I can only say that I have known Mr. Hurley for a fair long time and have thought for that same fair long time that he is both a fool and a bigot. Mr. VanderPlaats has made a political career out of decrying the homosexual addenda and contending that any claim, as Uncle Jocko so exactly puts it. that the Constitution requires that homosexuals be allow to do anything that heterosexuals are allowed to do is a demand for special privilege. During his doomed primary campaign it was his promise that when he became Governor his first official act would be to issue an executive order overruling the _Varnum_ decision. Now he is pushing for Mr. Brandstad, the once and future Governor, to do the same thing, even though Terry said more that once that the Gov had no such power. Congressman King is his own creature, impervious to history, logic or law with a black heart and no discernable soul. He has made a career of attacking foreigners, homosexuals, and government. He has no policy except to be against things and people who aren’t just like him. At least on this point all three are motivated by homophobia, plain, simple and ugly. While some people may have voted against retention of the three Justices because they didn’t like the Chief Justice’s private life, or because they wanted to protest the appointment system or because they were gripped by an irritable impulse to try to knock off a top hat with a snow ball, the organized campaign, the TV and radio ads, the big purple bus, the phone calls, the occasional sermon or homily rallying the Godly, were motivated by fear and hatred of homosexuals. That reads as bigotry in my book. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/108 "2010-11-07T00:11:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Really? Intermediate scrutiny existed in 1864? Did the Fourteenth exist in 1864?. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2010, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/109 "2010-11-07T00:45:54Z")
> [@Spavined\_Gelding](#): > > Bricker, it is difficult to _scan_ your multiple posts on this thread and conclude that the proposition you are asserting is that the Iowa Supremes ruled correctly in the _Varnum_ case. In fact one may read your clarification as conceding only that the Iowa Supremes applied the correct standard of review. One may read it that only if one is not paying attention. They applied the correct standard of review, they applied it the right way, and they reached the right result. It was correctly decided. It is good law, both as a term of art meaning “applicable precedent” and as a term of common sense meaning I agree with their decision. Because it’s apparently incomprehensible to some readers that someone can agree with the result of a decision without also believing that the opposing side is irredeemably evil, let me again say that at the same time I believe the principles in the above paragraph, I _also_ believe that a reasonable voter could take the opposite position without being a bigot. The bulk of my posts in this thread contain lines like, “A reasonable voter could believe…” I can only imagine that in your .. um… “scanning…” you have discarded those lines as meaningless filler, believing that when I say “A reasonable voter could…” it’s code for “and therefore I do…” > [@](#): > > In terms of the character and intent of the leaders of the Anti-judge faction, I can only say that I have known Mr. Hurley for a fair long time and have thought for that same fair long time that he is both a fool and a bigot. OK. I don’t know him, but I have no reason to believe you’re mistaken. > [@](#): > > At least on this point all three are motivated by homophobia, plain, simple and ugly. > > While some people may have voted against retention of the three Justices because they didn’t like the Chief Justice’s private life, or because they wanted to protest the appointment system or because they were gripped by an irritable impulse to try to knock off a top hat with a snow ball, the organized campaign, the TV and radio ads, the big purple bus, the phone calls, the occasional sermon or homily rallying the Godly, were motivated by fear and hatred of homosexuals. > > That reads as bigotry in my book. Sure. And as I said way back on page 1, '“Now, I’d grant that for every voter who said, in his mind, ‘I’m voting ‘no’ because they let gays marry,’ THAT is an unreasonable voter.” And I am sure that many, most, voters fit that mold. But I refuse to believe that all voters did. Some voters could reasonably think, “I don’t care about gays marrying, but a decision of this magnitude should come from the legislature.” A voter versed enough to know about general roles of the legislature and judiciary, but not hip to Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products Co. could well reach the conclusion that the court was wrong. This is not an unreasonable level of sophistication for the general public. AGAIN NOTE: just because I say a reasonable voter could do that does not mean that _I_ agree. As it happens, I am hip to Footnote Four. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2010, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/110 "2010-11-07T16:27:59Z")
It’s clear I’ll have to return when I can spend more time correcting **Bricker’s** many offensive misrepresentations of my position and arguments. But for now, I wish to reiterate my main point: I resolutely stand by my statement that **Bricker** has heaped such perfidious scorn upon: **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!** Why do I contend this? To put it as succinctly as possible: **Any civil right that is _granted_ by voters can be just as easily _revoked_ by voters!** Consider **Bricker’s** reprehensible and incredibly hyperbolic attacks on my statements, such as: > [@Bricker](#): > > … 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.” … Your base, craven willingness to surrender our sovereign power to the judges is sickening. **Bricker** , _your_ base, craven willingness – nay, outright _zeal_ – to grant the power to decide _which_ rights a person or a (so-called) “discrete and insular” minority may or may not possess or exercise to majority rule is starkly obscene and even inhuman, let alone anti-American. Astonishingly, you point to the Thirteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments with _admiration_. Incredible! How can you not see that the fact that such were necessary or even just _held_ to be necessary is a matter of deep national shame? Can’t see that the notion that a numerical majority of voters should actually establish (and thus be equally able to rescind) the rights a numerical minority can exercise is easily the most powerfully compelling argument _against_ democracy imaginable? Can’t see that this is _ **precisely** _ the most important reason the United States is emphatically **NOT** a democracy, contrary to yours and others’ despicable mobocratic rants about “shoving things down the throats of the voters”? Be ashamed, **Bricker** , be ashamed! I find it difficult to believe you’re being intellectually honest with us, sir. My intuition – based on other of your posts and threads – leads me instead to suspect you’re debating, to an appreciable extent, as would a defense attorney employing his rhetorical skills to defend a manifestly guilty client. At least I _hope_ that’s the explanation for your **particularly heinous and depraved** equation of justly barring voters from deciding which civil rights minority members possess or may exercise with, in your own words: “surrendering our sovereign power to the judges”! **The mind reels!** ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2010, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/111 "2010-11-07T18:02:25Z")
**Bricker** , if you had to guess what percentage of the people voting to unseat those judges actually carefully read the decision in question and rejected it on intellectual grounds as opposed to those who voted due a pure visceral reaction against gay marriage, how do you think the numbers would break down? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/112 "2010-11-07T19:31:22Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > **The mind reels!** 1. The Thirteenth Amendment could be repealed tomorrow. 2. Is that fact evil? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2010, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/113 "2010-11-07T19:34:27Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > **Bricker** , if you had to guess what percentage of the people voting to unseat those judges actually carefully read the decision in question and rejected it on intellectual grounds as opposed to those who voted due a pure visceral reaction against gay marriage, how do you think the numbers would break down? How about another category: those that didn’t read the decision, carefully or otherwise, but based their vote on the generic concept that such big decisions should be made by legislatures and not judges? In other words, your only two options are “carefully read the decision” or “visceral reaction against gay marriage.” That’s a False Dilemma. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2010, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/114 "2010-11-07T19:51:05Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > Can’t see that the notion that a numerical majority of voters should actually establish (and thus be equally able to rescind) the rights a numerical minority can exercise is easily the most powerfully compelling argument _against_ democracy imaginable? And just to be crystal clear, lest I seem to once again be flouting the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive: I LIKE the idea that the Thirteenth Amendment can be repealed tomorrow. I am not in favor of the amendment being repealed. But I am highly in favor of the system which allows the people, by exercise of their sovereignty, to alter or abolish the laws that govern them. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2010, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/115 "2010-11-07T23:03:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How about another category: those that didn’t read the decision, carefully or otherwise, but based their vote on the generic concept that such big decisions should be made by legislatures and not judges? I don’t think the “generic concept” is a good enough reason, considering that these learned men spent a great deal of effort reading briefs and sifting through case law on the Iowa constitution. This is precisely the reason why judges shouldn’t be elected. Popular sentiment should have no influence on a judges decision, most especially where the rights of an unpopular minority are concerned. > [@](#): > > In other words, your only two options are “carefully read the decision” or “visceral reaction against gay marriage.” That’s a False Dilemma. It leans more towards the latter, and you know it. I’d bet a million bucks that not even 10% of them even glanced at the decision before they condemned it. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2010, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/116 "2010-11-07T23:10:55Z")
There’s no chance in hell that this vote was motivated by some abstract concern about judicial philosophy, as **Bricker** is implying. I doubt any discernable number of those voters were simultaneously against the Iowa Supreme Court decision but in favor of gay marriage being implemented legislatively. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2010, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/117 "2010-11-07T23:15:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And just to be crystal clear, lest I seem to once again be flouting the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive: > > I LIKE the idea that the Thirteenth Amendment can be repealed tomorrow. > > I am not in favor of the amendment being repealed. But I am highly in favor of the system which allows the people, by exercise of their sovereignty, to alter or abolish the laws that govern them. Given your love of pure majoritarian rule, I’m wondering if you would prefer that the U.S adopt a Parliamentary system like they have in the U.K. It seems that would be more your style. Parliament can theoretically do anything they want, with no written constitution to impede them. Whatever the majority wants, they get. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2010, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/118 "2010-11-07T23:29:51Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I don’t think the “generic concept” is a good enough reason, considering that these learned men spent a great deal of effort reading briefs and sifting through case law on the Iowa constitution. This is precisely the reason why judges shouldn’t be elected. Popular sentiment should have no influence on a judges decision, most especially where the rights of an unpopular minority are concerned. 1. Then your objection is not to this vote, but to the popular election (or popular retention) of judges. 2. Do you object to voters voting on other referenda questions? In the vast majority of ballot questions, there’s a complicated issue with time devoted by learned men to its substance, but in each case the uneducated voter is expected to take a position. 3. How about voters on candidates? We surely accept that voters don’t study the positions taken by candidates. I suspect you would object to a proposal to limit the vote to those voters who could prove they knew objective facts about the candidate. > [@](#): > > It leans more towards the latter, and you know it. I’d bet a million bucks that not even 10% of them even glanced at the decision before they condemned it. I agree. But why are voters incompetent to vote in judges unless they read a decision, but competent to vote on candidates without knowing anything about the candidate? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2010, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/119 "2010-11-07T23:38:22Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Given your love of pure majoritarian rule, I’m wondering if you would prefer that the U.S adopt a Parliamentary system like they have in the U.K. It seems that would be more your style. Parliament can theoretically do anything they want, with no written constitution to impede them. Whatever the majority wants, they get. Not at all. I think our system is perfect. We require supermajorities to change the federal Constitution, which helps prevent the sway of passions of the moment but retains ultimate sovereignty in the people via their elected representatives. The idea that there are certain portions of the Constitution handed down from Mt Sinai and simply unamendable is garbage. ---
**Author:** ![FE3O4ENAIL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ba9def/32.png) [@FE3O4ENAIL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FE3O4ENAIL)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/120 "2010-11-08T00:47:20Z")
"The idea that there are certain portions of the Constitution handed down from Mt Sinai and simply unamendable is garbage. " Which usage? 3a? gar·bage (gärbj) n. 1. a. Food wastes, as from a kitchen. b. Refuse; trash. 2. A place or receptacle where rubbish is discarded: tossed the apple core into the garbage. 3. a. Worthless or nonsensical matter; rubbish: Their advice turned out to be nothing but garbage. b. Inferior or offensive literary or artistic material. 4. Computer Science Incorrect, meaningless, or unwanted data. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894.md?page=7)