[tlj009]

Three were up for retention. Three got voted out. What do you all think about it?

Iowans dismiss three justices | desmoinesregister.com | The Des Moines Register

[acrossthesirion]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Three were up for retention. Three got voted out. What do you all think about it?

Iowans dismiss three justices | desmoinesregister.com | The Des Moines Register

Since I live in Iowa I can give a bit of context.

Bob Vander Plaats, who lost his bid for the Republic gubernatorial candidacy, was supposedly thinking of still running for governor as an independent, but instead decided to put his fundraising efforts into "holding these judges accountable." There was a bus tour and a lot of stupid commercials about referees not making correct calls...

What they're being held accountable for was a ruling that paved the way for gay marriage in the state (basically stating that the Iowa constitution did not limit marriage to one man and one woman).

Criticisms of the ruling basically came from two different reasons. 1) Those who oppose gay marriage in itself and (2) those that oppose "judicial activism." The latter are concerned by what they see as courts creating legislation, not simply ruling on the constitutionality of already existing laws.

[JerryLove]

So they were kicked out, not on the grounds of a bad ruling, but of an unpopular one?

[adamwagg]

I don't really understand the whole idea of voting for judges. To me judges should rule on law impartially and I think having to be voted in or out loses that impartiality.

[acrossthesirion]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So they were kicked out, not on the grounds of a bad ruling, but of an unpopular one?

That's the issue.

Personally, a lot of the times it's hard for me to tell the difference between calling something "judicial activism" and saying "I don't like this ruling."

The "conservative" argument has been that in their ruling effectively created law (the correct job for congress not the courts).

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by acrossthesirion

The "conservative" argument has been that in their ruling effectively created law (the correct job for congress not the courts).

But I can guarantee that their ruling cites a law. As such there are only two possibilities:

1) They ruled correctly on the existing law.
2) They ruled incorrectly.

Unfortunately: the public and pundits seem to believe that the law always supports whatever position they want to be true. As an advocate of firearms, I'm oft dismayed at my fellow gun-owner's insistence on reinterpreting the second amendment.

Sadly, we won't know if these judges were actually right or not because there will be too much noise about whether their ruling on the law meets or fails the political stance of those analyzing.

In short: If you don't like the ruling: the remedy is to clarify the law.