The Iowa Republican



« | »

King Says Remove Supreme Court Justices

By Congressman Steve King

For too long we left the Iowa judicial branch to its own devices. Just like the rest of government, it has grown out of control without the blessing of Iowans or the watchful eye of voters.

With the judicial retention vote looming, the debate has shifted into two separate, but vitally important topics. First is the Varnum v. Brien (Same-sex marriage) opinion that highlighted the Iowa Supreme Court’s willful determination to legislate from the bench. The other question is: What to do about it.

Actually, the lawless decision in Varnum can only be debated as to how far-reaching and limitless the current court could rule if unchecked. When the Iowa Supreme Court justices claim omnipotent power to imagine and confer constitutional rights that “were at one time unimagined” it is time to remove them on that basis alone. It is obvious they feel empowered and will follow their whim in future decisions rather than the law. They have usurped the constitutional authority of the legislature and will do so at every notion until they are stopped by a vote of the people. To read their opinion brings one to the conclusion that these justices believe they have the authority to find the Constitution – unconstitutional.

On the matter of what the citizens of Iowa can do about their rogue judges, the retention vote is the only recourse. When judges usurp the letter of the Constitution and the Code of Iowa to suit their whim, they must be removed from office. The very fact that our Constitution calls for a retention vote on a general election ballot means the Constitutional intention is for the voters of Iowa to use their moral authority and judgment to check the runaway judicial branch.

However, judges do not want to acknowledge that fact. They encourage rubber stamp acquiescence from the citizens they want to rule. Some days ago, Judge Robert B. Hanson, the creator of Iowa’s same-sex marriage status, revealed the political nature of our current judicial system when he called opponents of his ruling “misguided.” He continued to characterize a ‘no’ vote on judicial retention as “an abuse of the system.” The U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Iowa were both designed so that, if any branch of government gets out of hand, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

Elitism and judicial arrogance are on full display. They have for so long controlled their own hierarchy and culture that they openly consider our constitutionally granted right to vote our conscience and judgment as “an abuse of the system.”

Heretofore, judges have wrapped themselves in the cloak of jurisprudence. The average Iowan believes that judges carefully and scholarly study the Constitution, the statutes and case law, then render a decision that is the objective result of jurisprudence. Some do. Justice Scalia told me that when he is unhappy with the effect of a decision he has made, he is confident that he has made the right legal decision. Not so with activist judges. They match their personal, political and policy preference with their conclusion, and then rationalize using creative and convoluted legal jujitsu to work backwards into their opinion. This is the stuff of Iowa’s judge made same-sex marriage policy.

Iowa law says that marriage is only between “a male and a female.” No judge can be allowed to remain on the bench who would turn thousands of years of law and human history on its head by discovering rights that “were at one time unimagined” in our Constitution. If Iowans read the decision, Varnum v. Brien, as I have, they will realize that their only recourse is to vote “NO” on all three Iowa Supreme Court judges who are on the back side of the ballot. I will vote “NO” on all three judges because it’s my sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and because it’s time to put the control of all three branches of government back in the hands of the people.

– Congressman Steve King represents Iowa’s Fifth Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives.

Photo by Dave Davidson

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted by on October 10, 2010.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Categories: Iowa, News Center, Top Story

27 Responses

  1. I regret that I won’t have the opportunity to vote NO on king three weeks from now.

    That said, I am glad that he is publicly attempting to refocus the judge-retention issue back to its initial reasons-for-being. When “fire-the-judges” first came up immediately after the Varnum decision, the Republican hue and cry loudly shouted all around the State was for revenge – we don’t like that decision so fire those judges. It was only as time passed, and the 40-some percent of Iowans who call themselves repubs and were afraid of “Marriage” somehow “failing”, saw that they weren’t really gaining any inroads into the rest of the citizenry, that repubs began re-casting the argument into there being a basic flaw in Iowa’s judicial system itself.

    Anyway, it’s good to see that king wants to take the argument back to its roots, that is, getting revenge on the justices for making a call that repubs don’t like.

    by Conservative Demo on Oct 10, 2010 at 5:52 pm

  2. Your comment proves once again that you can read but not comprehend what you read. We get you don’t like the Constitution. Like a good liberal you state opinion as fact and ramble forward thinking that somehow by the shear magic of your post you prove your superior intelligence. In reality, you show yourself the fool you really are.

    by ltrman on Oct 10, 2010 at 6:41 pm

  3. A half-hour’s reading of the TIR archive shows an historical pattern and trend among the response writers which perfectly bears out my contention.

    by Conservative Demo on Oct 10, 2010 at 6:47 pm

  4. We either reign in these out-of-control judges or fire the legislature. We don’t need both. The unfortunate party is that it will do little good to send these tyrants a message without a better method by which SC justices are chosen.

    If you have any desire to ever be a judge, be sure to make nice contributions to the Democrat party.

    They like to say that this method is fair and if the method is change, it will invite money to come into the system.

    What a crock. There is already money in the system–it’s the money put there by the Democrat lawyers who want to get on the SC.

    Throw the bums out!!

    by Deace voted for Obama on Oct 10, 2010 at 7:00 pm

  5. @ltrman – I like how anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a fool. Not sure where you get that CDemo doesn’t like the Constitution from his previous remark but I guess you must think it bolsters your response – sort of like “stating your opinion as fact”.

    by bvan on Oct 11, 2010 at 8:31 am

  6. I haven’t seen one post even remotely conservative by Conservative Demo. Talk about false advertising.

    by commonsense on Oct 11, 2010 at 8:41 am

  7. Seems like alot of posts at this site deal with social conservatism – not economic conservatism.

    by bvan on Oct 11, 2010 at 8:57 am

  8. The DOMA law violated the Constitution of the State by treating gay couples differently from straight couples. The judges didn’t overstep their bounds they did the job that they are required to do, just as other judges, even conservative judges appointed by republican governors are doing time and time again.

    Retention votes are not supposed to be revenge votes and that is exactly what is going on here.

    by VastVariety on Oct 11, 2010 at 10:13 am

  9. @bvan..he is not disagreeing with me, he is disagreeing with King who laid it out about as simply as one can do. That is where the fool part comes from. His disregard for the Constitution is obvious, as his acquiescence to the almighty black robed elite. He(CD) can be shown one plus one is 2 and he will argue some semantics that it really isn’t. There is really some some shade of gray.
    @VV…you are not treated an differently than anyone else. This canard is boring. Marriage has never been defined as anything other than one man and one woman. What you want is a special definition to cover homosexuals. And you can’t get it through the legislative process so it must be a “civil right.” You want to call a retention vote revenge, if that makes you feel better so be it. I call it my Constitutional right and duty.

    by ltrman on Oct 11, 2010 at 2:35 pm

  10. VastVariety wrote:

    “The DOMA law violated the Constitution of the State by treating gay couples differently from straight couples. The judges didn’t overstep their bounds they did the job that they are required to do, just as other judges . . . ”

    BULLHOCKEY!!!!!

    The Uniform Laws clause of the Iowa Constitution says explicitly this:
    “Laws uniform. SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

    The homosexuals in this state have EXACTLY the same privileges and immunities under DOMA that “straight” people do: They can marry in the traditional, historical monogamous, heterosexual manner. There is absolutely NO granting of any privileges or immunity to “straight” people that the homosexuals do not have.

    by Real_Republican on Oct 11, 2010 at 3:23 pm

  11. “Marriage has never been defined as anything other than one man and one woman.”

    You have obviously never bothered to read up on the history of marriage. There have been legal forms of same sex marriage since the time of the Egyptian Empire, about 4500 years ago.

    Please tell me how the DOMA law treated me the same as every other person when it prevented me from marrying the person that I love unlike what happens to heterosexual people.

    by VastVariety on Oct 11, 2010 at 3:24 pm

  12. Wrong Real. DOMA treated Gay people differently than straight people by preventing them from marrying.

    What your saying is that if I forgo all the reasons why someone would want to get married in the first place I could get married under your delusional version of the law treating me equally.

    by VastVariety on Oct 11, 2010 at 3:27 pm

  13. Blacks had the “privilege” to ride the bus same as whites – as long as they sat in the back of the bus and were willing to give up their seat to a white person. Blacks could marry – as long as they married other blacks – or at least non-whites.

    I would not say that blacks and whites were treated “EXACTLY” the same and today, the courts agree. It is just a matter of time before homosexuals have equal rights, and the sooner people realize this the better.

    by bvan on Oct 12, 2010 at 3:49 am

  14. > They can marry in the traditional, historical monogamous, heterosexual manner. There is absolutely NO granting of any privileges or immunity to “straight” people that the homosexuals do not have.

    Again, this is like Henry Ford saying you can get the Model-T in *any* color you want, as long as it’s Black.

    by Jeff on Oct 12, 2010 at 6:29 am

  15. I think a more accurate statement may be “Christian marriage has never been defined as anything other than one man and one or more women.”
    In America, long before the Europeans invaded, a male of “Two Spirits” took the role of a woman and could marry.

    The Greeks had no problem with homosexuals. The Romans didn’t start killing homosexuals until they became Christians.

    by bvan on Oct 12, 2010 at 7:54 am

  16. To clarify: The Romans didn’t start killing homosexuals until the Romans became Christians.

    by bvan on Oct 12, 2010 at 8:04 am

  17. VastVariety wrote:

    “Wrong Real. DOMA treated Gay people differently than straight people by preventing them from marrying.” No it doesn’t. Homosexual people are not barred from marriage under DOMA. They have the same freedom to participate in one man-one woman marriage as all other Iowans.

    “What your saying is that if I forgo all the reasons why someone would want to get married in the first place I could get married under your delusional version of the law treating me equally.”

    I never said any such thing. What I said was that the DOMA law fully meets the constitutional requirement of uniform application: it applies to all Iowans equally. It simply is not “un-Constitutional” on this basis (nor any other for that matter).

    by Real_Republican on Oct 12, 2010 at 8:12 pm

  18. “DOMA law fully meets the constitutional requirement of uniform application: it applies to all Iowans equally.”

    Apparently it doesn’t and it isn’t just the Iowa Supreme Court that is making this decision as we are seeing similar decisions coming out from courts all over the country.

    Federal DOMA was ruled unconstitutional in Massachusetts

    DADT was struck down in California

    Prop 8 banning same sex marriage in California was struck down as unconstitutional

    The ban on same sex couples adopting children in Florida was struck down as unconstitutional

    This isn’t 1 judge or one court. Over and over again the courts are saying you can’t take one group of people and treat them differently under the law than another group of people and that’s exactly what laws like DOMA did.

    by VastVariety on Oct 12, 2010 at 9:24 pm

  19. VastVariety wrote:

    “DOMA law fully meets the constitutional requirement of uniform application: it applies to all Iowans equally.”

    Apparently it doesn’t and it isn’t just the Iowa Supreme Court that is making this decision as we are seeing similar decisions coming out from courts all over the country”

    V V, you have done a wonderful job here of confirming the problem that citizen constitutionalists have been decrying for years: The courts are ruling the country, not the people of the United States. We fought a revolution at the founding of this nation to separate ourselves from this blatant tyranny, and now, as you quite succinctly point out, we are sadly living under it again. Fortunately, it looks like at least 3 of the black robed tyrants will be “sent packin’” come November. If we all stay diligent, we can eventually free ourselves from the tyranny of the federal “judges” that you also highlight above. Thanks for helping to clarify that it isn’t just the SCOI elitist “judges” that we need to purge . . . it is all of the black robed tyrants that infest the runaway, unconstitutional ruling class. Good job.

    by Real_Republican on Oct 13, 2010 at 6:30 am

  20. Courts making sure that laws treat people equally isn’t tyranny. Banning people from being able to engage in marriage becuase of who they are is.

    by VastVariety on Oct 13, 2010 at 8:46 am

  21. VastVariety wrote:

    “Courts making sure that laws treat people equally isn’t tyranny.”

    True . . . if that is what they are doing. The SCOI in Varnum wasn’t “making sure that laws treat people equally.” They were unconstitutionally creating a new law that said people of the same gender can “marry.” They don’t have that authority under the Iowa Constitution, and that makes it tyranny.

    “Banning people from being able to engage in marriage becuase of who they are is.”

    Fortunately, no one in Iowa has ever been banned from marrying by any law for who they are.

    by Real_Republican on Oct 14, 2010 at 10:37 pm

  22. “Fortunately, no one in Iowa has ever been banned from marrying by any law for who they are.”

    You are unfortunately incorrect as the DOMA law prevented me from marrying the person I love.

    by VastVariety on Oct 15, 2010 at 5:28 am

  23. VastVariety wrote

    “You are unfortunately incorrect as the DOMA law prevented me from marrying the person I love.”

    You can’t “marry the person you love,” regardless of DOMA. Marriage is between one man and one woman, not between homosexual man and homosexual man. DOMA never stoped you from marrying anyone. Even if the legislature passed a law saying you could “marry” another man, it wouldn’t be a valid law.

    by Real_Republican on Oct 17, 2010 at 3:09 pm

  24. Thanks for proving my point about the DOMA law treating gay people unequally.

    by VastVariety on Oct 17, 2010 at 4:57 pm

  25. VastVariety wrote:

    “Thanks for proving my point about the DOMA law treating gay people unequally.”

    Sorry, once again, it just isn’t true. Gay people are not prohibited or banned from marrying under DOMA . . . all Iowan’s are treated equally under DOMA – and the law is perfectly constitutional.

    by Real_Republican on Oct 18, 2010 at 5:51 pm

  26. No mater how many times you repeat that to yourself Real it still won’t be true.

    by VastVariety on Oct 18, 2010 at 8:49 pm

  27. VastVariety wrote:

    “No mater how many times you repeat that to yourself Real it still won’t be true.”

    No . . . no matter how many times I repeat it, you will refuse to accept the truth.

    But tell me: what woman have you been denied the priviledge of marrying? If you tell me “none,” then you have been treated EXACTLY the same as every other Iowan under DOMA. And that makes the law perfectly Constitutional.

    by Real_Republican on Oct 20, 2010 at 8:44 pm

You must be logged in to post a comment.

« | »




Recent Posts


Pages



About The Iowa Republican

Craig Robinson is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Iowa Republican. Robinson got his first taste of Iowa politics in 1999 while serving as Steve Forbes’ southeast Iowa field coordinator where he was responsible for organizing 27 counties. With over eight years of Iowa fundraising experience, Robinson has helped numerous Republican candidates implement fundraising strategies […]more →