Giggs, I think it depends on where you put the magnifying glass. To some extent you're right. It is indeed the role of the courts to protect the rights of an unpopular minority. However, if you move the magnifying glass back a little, you remember that it is the responsibility of ALL members of a representative democracy, ultimately, to respond to the will of the people. The Iowa Supreme court should have remanded the issue back to the legislature (as was done in Vermont) once it concluded that there was an equal protection issue that needed addressed. Then everyone would have had their representation, and the courts could have either upheld the new legislation or struck it down for unequal protection.<quoted text>
This is an example of the ignorance that I am talking about. The intentions may be pure, but this poster is wrong on the basics of our civic system and the judiciary's obligations and role within that system.
The judiciary "ignores the majority" because it has no responsibility to. In fact, "the majority" has absolutely no bearing on the case. It is not a democratic excerise, but rather a constitutional one. 99.9% of the citizens can support a law, but if it is deemed unconstitutional the Court must strike it down. Majority support has absolutely nothing to do with it. The Court also has no obligation to uphold a law written and passed by the legislature if the law is unconstitutional. It's called checks and balances and you learned about it in 6th grade civics class. These are some of the basics that the 'Vote No' crowd repeatedly gets wrong. You guys seriously lack a basic understanding of civcs.
Lastly, Concerned, what "midwest values" are you talking about? I am a born and bred midwesterner and I believe in the value of equal rights for all. Why is it you have to change our Constitution in order to install your "values" in it? Apparently the founders of our state didn't share your "values."
The general population may be ignorant of sixth grade civics lessons, but they know when they smell a rat. The Iowa Judicial Nominating and Qualifications Commission is made up of almost all Democrats.( http://www.michnews.com/Guest_Commentary/ap41... ) The Democrats are learning a very valuable lesson about ignoring the will of their constituency, and the judges are going to pay for their nominators' willfulness. It may not be entirely fair, but John Lily said "all is fair in love and war" and Carl von Clausewitz said "war is the continuation of politics by other means", so, I guess we can conclude that "all is fair in love and politics".