The biggest story of election night has gone unremarked upon. That story is in Iowa and involves the judiciary. Here is the short version.
In 1962 Iowans decided to put in some checks and balances to prevent runaway judicial activism. That is, every 8 years their Supreme Court justices have to be reconfirmed by the voters. There is no running for the position by opponents. The choices are simple, retain the justice yes or no.
For the first time since 1962, the inception of the law, the good people of Iowa said "enough." We are tired of unelected judges making up law. The role of a judge is to apply the law - not to create law or misinterpret existing law to mean something other than what it meant when it was passed.
For you see, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the constitution of Iowa gave men the right to marry men and women the right to marry women. Yet those words are not in the constitution. And the "defense of marriage act" - a federal law, prohibited these judges from ruling as they did. Yet, these judges decided that they could impose their will upon the good people of Iowa.
And the good people of Iowa rose up saying this creating law where none exist and engaging in judicial activism shall not go unpunished. And they voted all three (i.e., 100 percent) of the judges that stood for confirmation off the Supreme Court. All three judges voted for this travesty and all three judges were voted off. It is extremely likely that had the other Supreme Court justices stood for confirmation they would also have been voted off.
Much will be made of many elections this year. But this is the real story of the election. The good people of Iowa chose to say "enough" - nay, they said "ENOUGH!" and their roar will be heard by other activist judges.
Superb!!
ReplyDelete"But well-funded interests from outside the state helped topple the justices — Supreme Court Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit. According to this piece in the Omaha World-Herald, the National Organization for Marriage spent $200,000 on commercials aimed at ousting the justices. Similar groups outspent those working on behalf of the justices by almost 4-1 through the middle of last month."
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/11/03/judgeless-in-iowa-making-sense-of-tuesdays-judicial-ouster/
Just Be,
ReplyDeleteI would have supported the removal of these three because I believe they were wrong and the law allowed me to.
I've got some concerns about the concept of removing judges over unpopular decisions. In California the judges might have been removed if they'd made the oppossite ruling. A couple days ago an FT Poster did a blog that said Obama should Impeach the conservative members of the Supreme Court because of the Citizens Natioal Ruling.
Could get a little crazy if judges have to factor political fallout into their judgements.
I agree...the courts should be protected from the mob...however...the mob needs better protection from courts that become legislators and not judges.
ReplyDeleteThat starts with the appoval process. Ombamas appointed two to the SCOTUS I wouldn't let settle an argument between two year olds over a piece of candy.
ReplyDeleteAnother vote of interest was California voting to NOT allow the legalization of Marijuana. Wonder if the this one will also be overturned as the court did when Californians overwhelmingly said NO to gay marriage.
ReplyDeleteA friend of mine just suggested it will be challenged in court because the potheads all forgot it was election day
ReplyDeleteGays and potheads are people too!
ReplyDeleteThat's true anonymous, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to sanction their life styles.
ReplyDeleteSorry to disagree, but the point was that the people said, "NO. The judges cannot BREAK THE LAW (Defense of Marriage Act that the U.S. House and Senate wrote and the President signed) that already exists. THAT'S the point. The judges were breaking existing law! It's got nothing to do with who spent what. The people said, "NO! Do NOT break the law!" Spending had nothing to do with their removal; people said the law matters.
ReplyDeleteJefferson warned of the concept of "Judicial Review", which in reality basically does mean judges can invent law as they go. That concept isn't in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution was purposely left vague by the Federalists, in terms of the role of the judiciary. The Federalists, by and large wanted Federal tyranny, but couldn't come right out and put it in print; or the Constitution would have never been ratified. Though the Anti-Federalists new this all along, hence their opposition to the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteWith Marbury v. Madison, the SCOTUS basically anointed itself with judicial review, and Congress didn't do a damn thing about it. If the SCOTUS is a co-equal branch of government, how in the world could they have the ONLY, final say on what is and isn't Constitutional? This was Jefferson's question. He believed that ultimately, since the state legislatures created the federal government, THEY would have the final say. His preferred tool for this was state interposition and nullification.
Let's be honest folks, you cannot expect the Federal Judiciary to limit federal power; just the opposite. They use judicial review to legitimize unconstitutional power grabs by the federal government, not limit them. The proof is in history, and it didn't take very long from our nation's founding to happen, either.
If we really want to "take our country back", we can't do it federally, because that's who has it right now. We must work through the state legislatures. This will all become clear to us in the coming years when nothing substantive comes of the recent victory.
Lewis, there's a piece of tomorrow mornings blog I think you're going to like.
ReplyDelete