Unseating Judges who Legalized SSM in Iowa

Sure. We learn in elementary school that legislatures make the laws, and courts interpret them. Since no new law was made letting gays marry, it’s very much counter-intuitive that a 164-year-old law meant, all along, that they had the right to marry. Yes, it’s intuitive. It may not correct, but it’s certainly intuitive, much more so than the idea that 164 years ago, same-sex marriage was a requirement of the Iowa constitution and no one noticed.

I don’t know. But c’mon.

Whoa. You seem to think I am arguing that Varnum v. Brien is bad case law. I’m not.

Then at least one of them is wrong. So what?

Then what are you arguing? Your position is that major social change should only be brought about legislatively, yes? *Brown *and *Varnum *both brought about major social change. Should they have happened or not? Are they good case law or not?

How are we, the public, to know which one is wrong?

No. I’m arguing that a reasonable person can feel that way without being a bigot.

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.

But I do not believe that anyone who disagrees with me is an evil bigot.

By reading it. The text is the text. It’s available to everyone.

Right. But since two people can read the text and reach different conclusions, how can we then settle the dispute?

You’ve said that the court here simply interpreted the law; they made no changes and were self-evidently right. But you’ve also acknowledged that courts can misinterpret the law. So I’m asking you how Iowa voters can judge whether the courts misinterpreted this law. You say they should simply read it, but many people have read the law and it says nothing, to their eyes, that makes same-sex marriage a right.

So when the text produces two opposite answers in two readers, what’s the next step to reach the finality, the certainty, you spoke of?

My certainty is my own. Legally, the Court makes the calls, but sometimes they get them wrong. In the case of Iowa SSM, they got it right. If I say an official made a good call on a particular play, tht doesn’t mean I must necessarily think that all plays made by all officials are always good, so I don’t see what your point is with this. In Iowa, the zebras made a correct call based on a correct interpretation of the rule. They didn’t write the rule, they just enforce it. Just like the officials were correctly enforcing the rule on the Tom Brady tuck play. Sure it should have been a fumble, but the rule was written the way it was written. The zebras weren’t making up a new rule, just enforcing it.

The voters in Iowa can see that the correct call was made by reading the rule for themselves. If they still think the zebras got it wrong, that just means they themselves don’t understand – or don’t care about – the rule as it is actually written.

But soppose Joe Iowan says to you, “Yeah, I voted those bozos out, because I want judges who don’t write new interpretations of the state constitution; Iowa’s equal protection clause should be held to mean no more and no less than the federal one. My certainty is my own.”

He’s doing just what you’re doing. He’s just reaching a different conclusion about “as written.”

I don’t care what Joe Iowan says. He’s wrong, I’m right. Such is life. All the more reason that the judiciary should not be subject to elections. The voters are stupid.

And yet despite your lack of legal training, you are right and the Supreme Court is wrong when you say it is.

In fact, that seems to be the one somewhat constant drumbeat permeating your offerings in this thread: you are right, no matter whose opinion you are arrayed against. Not only are you right, but you are self-evidently right; they are not only wrong, but unreasonably wrong.

Except that they’d be removing a long-standing (almost 50 years now) right and per your own stated belief, that kind of change should come from the Legislature, not the Courts. You’re hoist on your own petard.

Absolutely true. I believe that such a change should come from the legislature, and although I am strongly pro-life, I would be appalled at such a ruling. It would be awful.

But I posed that question to someone who was extolling the virtues of the courts stepping in when the legislature doesn’t. I was pointing out that his supposed love of the courts’ rule would vanish in an instant when he disagreed with the the court. In short, his appreciation was not for the courts supplanting the tyranny of the majority, but merely for the courts enforcing the view he likes.

The Supreme Court is wrong when it’s wrong. It has nothing to do with what I say.

I have supreme clarity of mind. It’s a curse.

I think the major difference here (at least for me), is that in every hypothetical you (and I) have offered revolves around the court taking away rights. This is a case of the Legislature lagging behind in acknowledging rights that are arguably due anyway. The Court stepped in. It’s a key distinction.

No, the example discussed in post #26 above has the legislature lagging behind in recognizing the right to life of the unborn, and the court stepping in to correct that lack.

Or removing the recognized right of a sentient woman to control her own body. C’mon, dude. That’s a hanging curveball and you know it.

OK, I’ve had enough and can’t resist the compulsion to stick my nose in here. As a matter of disclosure: I am an Iowan, I am an Iowa lawyer, for a while I was an inferior court judge, I am a member of the judicial nominating commission for trial court judges in this corner of the state.

The campaign to punish the state supreme court for the gay marriage decision has been ongoing since the case was decided. Initially the campaign was the brain child of Robert VanderPlaats who ran for Governor on pretty much the sole issue of the decision, and Charles Hurley, a failed small town lawyer and briefly a member of the state parole board by virtue of his appointment by the once and future governor (when Charlie went on the parole board the word was quickly spread that anyone who wanted out of the state pen had better find Jesus and had best find Him pretty damned fast). For the last few years Charlie has been the state coordinator for James Hobson’s Focus on the Family outfit. VanderPlaats lost the GOP primary to Terry Brandstad who had served two or three terms as governor and now will be governor again. VanderPlaats declined to team up with Brandstad and pretty much devoted himself full time to seeing that the three justices up for retention were not retained and urging the repeal of the Iowa system of appointing trial and appellate judges in favor of a straight popular election. Someplace in here Congressman Steve King, who first came to popular attention by decrying Mexican and Central American packing house workers as a moral and national security threat, became an active player.

The whole thing did not come to a boil until just after Labor Day when the state was deluged by 30 second TV advertising denouncing activist judges making law and denigrating the institution of marriage. The whole thing topped off a couple weeks before the election with Congressman Steve, VanderPlaats and Charlie on a huge purple bus bedecked with portraits of Chief Justice Ternus, Justice Streit and Justice Baker with big red diagonal stripes and the word NO across them.

The Justices for their part did pretty much nothing – presumably trusting in their own virtue and the feeble public education program (in which I participated) put up by the state bar association. After all, Iowa’s judicial appointment and retention system, in place for almost 50 years without a hint of controversy, is supposed to be non-political. The Justices and the bar, bless their hearts, found themselves in a knife fight armed with retractable ball point pens. They never had a chance.

Those of use who have lived through this little horror show know full well that this was not a fight about constitutional theory, the proper roll of the courts in society or Turnus, C.J.’s personal and family life. It was a deliberate effort on the part of cynical politicians and true believers to punish a soft target for the gay marriage decision. It was a celebration of homophobia, just that and nothing more. As much as people who were not here or who might have some private ax to grind might pretend otherwise homophobia is all there was to it.

It is not the end of the world. Iowans tend to be pretty rational although we do have our moments – as the effort to prohibit church services in German, Norwegian, Danish and any other language than English in the years after WWI as a national security measure. We will get over this. The demographics will overwhelm the haters. The integrity and independence of the courts will be protected. Men of good will and good sense will prevail --and will have the good sense to fight back.

And also, a pox on our once and future governor who chose to stand above the fray and spoke not a word in defense or condemnation of the Iowa appointment and retention system or the three dedicated, experienced and reputable jurists whose careers have now been pretty well destroyed for the gratification of the true believers. It would have almost been kinder to have dragged them out in front of the Judicial Building in Des Moines and strung them up to a lamp post.

As a side note, if there is a reason to have sought the removal of the Chief Justice it is that she and her predecessors have been engaged in a campaign that, however well intentioned and driven by fiscal considerations, is effectively eviscerating the courts in the rural counties – dismissal of court reporters, early closing in the clerks offices, restrictions on judicial travel (if you want to try your case you and your client and all your witnesses will have to drive two hours one way to the City County courthouse, we don’t have any judges who can go to East Harnessbuckle County -and you will have to hire a private court reported, too). There is no indication that Mr. VanderPlaats, Charlie Hurley or Representative King give a good God Damn about that.

In the meantime, I look forward to the publication of Bricker’s law review article pointing out the error of the Iowa Court’s decision. He seems to have plenty of time to pontificate here, his busy professional life notwithstanding, so there is no reason he could not put together a couple hundred pages of dense reasoning and comment on the matter. The Iowa Law Review might have an interest, thought it doesn’t pay much. But then maybe our friend can get a canned brief from the Federalist Society.

I guess your own extensive prep time for your post caused you to miss this one of mine:

And of course it’s blindingly obvious you missed the last line:

It’s not ridiculous to say that changes in the law should come from the legislature if the facts have not changed.

In the case of gay rights, the facts unquestionably have changed.

The mainstream medical and psychological view is no longer that homosexuality is a mental illness. The once widespread view that it is, which became enshrined in the law, no longer has any basis, and thus neither do the laws.