by Matt Marquardt –
MASON CITY – Two bus tours on the opposite ends of the judicial retention battle stopped in Mason City Wednesday morning to make their cases.
At one end of the spectrum was the “Yes Iowa Judges” campaign sponsored by the Iowa State Bar Association, which aims to defend all Iowa judges and justices who stand for retention in November.
The Iowa State Bar Association leadership rented a mobile media truck to travel to the 17 Iowa cities and towns being visited by the other bus tour, called the “No Wiggins” tour sponsored by the Family Leader organization.
The “No Wiggins” contingent was much more high-powered and more people gathered at their demonstration. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was there, as was Bob Vander Plaats, the president of the Family Leader and state chair for the Iowans for Freedom “No Wiggins” bus tour. State Legislator Merlin Bartz also spoke.
Jindal gave a rousing speech condemning President Barack Obama and Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins.
“This election might be the most important of our adult lives,” Jindal said of the presidential race. “Look at all the broken promises coming out of Washington D.C. There’s enough reasons to replace this president, make him a one-term president.”
On Justice Wiggins, Jindal said Wiggins “doesn’t have the right to usurp the powers of the governor and the legislature.”
Vander Plaats said “David Wiggins has got to go, we have to get him out of there.”
Supporters of “Yes Iowa Judges” had a more simple message: Turn the ballot over and vote “yes.”
Watch the following video for much more:
httpv://youtu.be/LaM2kY18Wdg
Much silence from the “Vote No” crowd. Must be waiting for a press release before they respond to my interrogatories, or provide basis for their exclusionary dogma.
#1
“I will vote not to retain Justice Wiggins simply because the court he was involved with in the same sex marriage ruling acted in a manner contrary to their constitutional authority.”
Let us look at what the Iowa Constitution says: “Jurisdiction of supreme court. SEC. 4….. shall constitute a court for the correction of errors at law..”
In striking the language found in the unconstitutional law passed by legislature, the Justices did perform their constitutional duties as stated.
#2
“The Judicial branch is not authorized to create law and by over-ruling the Defense of Marriage Act of Iowa, the court illegally dismantled a constitutionally formulated law and replaced it with another law they deemed to be appropriate according to the OPINION of these six “appointed” justices.”
I found no such law created, only the unconstitutional language in an existing law stricken. There was no alternative relief filed by the defendants; Polk County Clerk’s office, thus the action taken was appropriate.
Again, the Iowa Constitution provides that the Supreme Court of Iowa is the only venue to remedy unconstitutional laws. It does not say to remand the case to the Legislature. It was the Legislature who created the bad law to begin with.
#3
“There is no “Equal Rights” issue here…”
There are equal rights when a law is applied to citizens, restricting only a portion of them. Laws must apply equally to all people. That is the reasoningbehind of the Equal Protecion Clause of both the Iowa, and U.S. Constitution. Case history from SCOTUS bears that out. See Loving v. Virginia as the perfect example.
#4
“The Court did not do this because they knew it would still result in recognition of only traditional marriage, so they skirted the law and the Constitution to illegally impose gay marriage on the people of Iowa.”
With this quote, it is plainly obvious you did not read the Justices decision. It is quite likely you cannot site what law they “skirted”, nor can you point to what in the Iowa Constituion they did like wise. But I give you this chance to correct me. Reply in kind, and spell it out to us all.
#5
“There is no liberty and justice from an activist judge.”
I cannot find any proof or justification that any of the seven Justices who decided Varnum v. Brien were acting in an “activist” manner. I thought their arguements were proper, and citations accurate.
#6
“The only need for any governmental involvement is spousal privilege. “Marriage” should be left to the church and endorsement of any “marriage” within the church should fall under that churches doctrine.”
You would need to strike all existing laws dealing with marriage, both in Iowa, and Federally. And for those people who do not practice any relgion, you would with hold the ability to be married. Thus commiting another unconstitutional act. Faux Pas!
When I return home, I will refute your legal arguements against Varnum v. Brien. Be ready to bolster your positions on a legal, not religious or personal basis.
I can tell you in brief that the arguments used have been found false in the past.
I will vote not to retain Justice Wiggins simply because the court he was involved with in the same sex marriage ruling acted in a manner contrary to their constitutional authority. The Judicial branch is not authorized to create law and by over-ruling the Defense of Marriage Act of Iowa, the court illegally dismantled a constitutionally formulated law and replaced it with another law they deemed to be appropriate according to the OPINION of these six “appointed” justices. There is no “Equal Rights” issue here and if the court thought DOMA was unconstitutional their authority would allow them to remand the legislation to the legislature to be modified so it would be constitutional. The Court did not do this because they knew it would still result in recognition of only traditional marriage, so they skirted the law and the Constitution to illegally impose gay marriage on the people of Iowa. All justices involved in this travesty should be removed.
I tend to vote with the no voters, however, I do not like the religious overtones to this issue. I think religion should not take part in out legal issues and these people who come from other states telling us right from wrong just need to go home and mind their own business. Maybe if VanderPlatts lose this he will crawl back into his pious hole and leave the rest of the wold alone. On that alone I will probably vote yes.
No disrespect intended but does this guy look like the president of Iran?
What freedoms have you lost by allowing same sex couples to marry? Since when has the Republican party been interested in meddling in the personal affairs of the people. The fact is that Republicants want to limit the rights of this group based on archaic religious bigotry.
so you will be voting for Obama?
http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com/entrepreneurs/2012/09/26/who-in-world-is-gary-johnson-and-why-dont-know-about-him/#ixzz27fzeeOOe
What you and many fail to realize is that it is not about same sex marriage for many. It is about one judge in Iowa playing activist and using a non-related case to push through legalization of same sex marriage. Same sex activists targeted Iowa to push just this agenda. The Iowa Supreme Court wrongly upheld the move and the Democrat held Iowa legislature REFUSED to allow the citizens of Iowa to vote on this issue. So its all well and good since it is same sex marriage, and same sex marriage is something you endorse. But what if next time it is something you do NOT endorse. Isn’t the “whats good for the goose is good for the gander” theory one of Newton’s laws? Government needs to get its nose out of people’s lives. Some of it may be semantics BUT both same sex and opposite sex marriage, as defined by the government, should be considered civil unions. The only need for any governmental involvement is spousal privilege. “Marriage” should be left to the church and endorsement of any “marriage” within the church should fall under that churches doctrine.
I agree civil unions should be all the government gives to anyone. To me not allowing gays to marry is a civil rights issue and I don’t think the voters should be able to deny those rights at the ballot box anymore than you could stop interracial marriage. What was the original case about that the court ruled on?
I will be voting NO.
The Iowa Bar Association has it bass ackwards. We get our freedom back by voting NO. There is no liberty and justice from an activist judge. These judges should not be on the bench for such long terms anyway.
When you have an activist Judge like Wiggins, he has to go.
VOTE NO! Throw him off the bench!