What's new
By:

Gay Marriage In IA Legal?

S

Scat

Well-Known Member
The quote itself is pretty asinine. In essence "we the people can do whatever we want, regardless of whether or not it's actually Constitutional."

Exhibit A in why judicial elections are a bad concept.
 
Sirkickyass said:
The quote itself is pretty asinine. In essence "we the people can do whatever we want, regardless of whether or not it's actually Constitutional."

Exhibit A in why judicial elections are a bad concept.
Click to expand...

Constitutional?

It sounds like the voters just want them to honor and obey the constitution, eh?

"I don't think they should have the power to change the constitution and take things into their own hands," Noel said."
 
Hopper said:
Constitutional?

It sounds like the voters just want them to honor and obey the constitution, eh?

"I don't think they should have the power to change the constitution and take things into their own hands," Noel said."
Click to expand...

Hopper for the ownage.
 
Hopper said:
Constitutional?

It sounds like the voters just want them to honor and obey the constitution, eh?

"I don't think they should have the power to change the constitution and take things into their own hands," Noel said."
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that a person described in the article as being 43 and from Bloomfield is in a better position to determine the meaning of the Constitution than the Iowa Supreme Court?

To my mind the real issue here is judicial independence.
 
Sirkickyass said:
Do you really believe that a person described in the article as being 43 and from Bloomfield is in a better position to determine the meaning of the Constitution than the Iowa Supreme Court?

To my mind the real issue here is judicial independence.
Click to expand...

I really have no clue what the case was about, but if the Iowa Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, gives same-sex couples a right to marry, then I would say Noel may know more about it than them, yeah.
 
Hopper said:
I really have no clue what the case was about, but if the Iowa Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, gives same-sex couples a right to marry, then I would say Noel may know more about it than them, yeah.
Click to expand...

So since it was a State Constitutional claim you have no beef?
 
Sirkickyass said:
So since it was a State Constitutional claim you have no beef?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Courts generally attempt to discern and enforce the intentions of the parties subjecting themselves to the "agreement," when interpreting documents, even constitutions. The people may be in a better position to know what, as a collective group, the majority of them intended by a particular clause, however worded, than some supreme court justice.
 
Sirkickyass said:
If popular will should control then why have a Constitution at all?
Click to expand...


Where do you think a constitution comes from to begin with? People in Iowa are free to amend their constitution any time, as other states have done, without regard for what any particular judge thinks it "should" say.
 
Hopper said:
People in Iowa are free to amend their constitution any time, as other states have done, without regard for what any particular judge thinks it "should" say.
Click to expand...

They didn't exactly amend the Constitution here though, they just decided to oust a handful of judges based upon a particular decision.
 
sirkickyass said:
They didn't exactly amend the Constitution here though, they just decided to oust a handful of judges based upon a particular decision.
Click to expand...

Well, sure, just like ya would "impeach" any judge who wantonly violates your state constitution.

Like, who knows what they would haul off and do next, while you're in the process of amendin, if ya just left em be?
 
Hopper said:
Well, sure, just like ya would "impeach" any judge who wantonly violates your state constitution.
Click to expand...

But it didn't actually have the effect of overturning the decision right? Nor is there an inclination that this will somehow change the result of the decision because we don't know who the next judges will be.

All indications are that this was a single issue vote. I certainly haven't seen any articles suggesting it was based upon a different decision made by those three judges.

The Iowa Supreme Court hears lots of cases every year and this represented, in the case of at least two of the three justices, significantly less than 1% of their rulings while on the Court. I don't think anyone is arguing that they did a bad job generally, they just disagree in one instance out of many.

Iowa has a strong judicial history: rejecting Dred Scott prior to the Supreme Court doing so, having a state version of Brown v. Board before Brown v. Board occurred, etc etc. It's a damn shame things went down this way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top