• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

Wessexman said:
Nope it is a label that when used accurately refers to the ignoring of precedent and tradition and the redefining of terms changing constitutions to mere guidelines and the rule of law to naught. It is nothing but the arbitrary power of a partial judicial dictatorship and should be fought as all arbitrary power should.
If that is true it as bad.

:lol:

Judicial activism is in direct contradiction to that tradition.

And it as easy to sell the ignorant that courts should have the arbitrary power to make laws when it is something that is good.
Click to expand...
I can't say that I disagree with your post in a theoretical sense. However, in application it is quite different. You can point to pretty much every decision that is labeled "Judicial Activism" by the right-wing and see that it does not involve ignoring precedent, but is actually based on logical application of that precedent.
 
disneydude said:
I can't say that I disagree with your post in a theoretical sense. However, in application it is quite different. You can point to pretty much every decision that is labeled "Judicial Activism" by the right-wing and see that it does not involve ignoring precedent, but is actually based on logical application of that precedent.
Click to expand...

I would not know about that but I can certainly see that things like randomly redefining marriage or equal protection or happiness or privacy to allow much things as gay marriage or federal control of abortion by a judiciary is judicial activism.

I'm not against gay marriage personally, I simply don't think this is the right way to go about getting it legalised.
 
Wessexman said:
I would not know about that but I can certainly see that things like randomly redefining marriage or equal protection or happiness or privacy to allow much things as gay marriage or federal control of abortion by a judiciary is judicial activism.

I'm not against gay marriage personally, I simply don't think this is the right way to go about getting it legalised.
Click to expand...

There is no "Random" redefining of marriage. It is actually a very well supported decision based on years of legal precedent and logical application of equal protection jurisprudence.
To put it simply, if the government involves itself in allowing people to enter into legal contracts, why should the government involve itself it defining who should be able to enter into that contract based on race, gender, age or sexual orientation. Its actually very logical
 
disneydude said:
You're engaging in circular reasoning. It is in the California Constitution because the California Constitution like most Constitutions ensures equal protection under the laws. If the state chooses to engage in granting marriage licenses, it must do so in a manner that does not violate equal protection. This means that the government should not place limitations based on a person's sexual orientation to enter into a legal contract.
Click to expand...

circular reasoning...I was just asking because I don't remember. believe it or not I don't think much about gay marriage in my daily life. it's been months since I've even heard anyone talk about it, except on this website.

anyway like I was saying to bodhisattva, I don't know that you can claim it's a limitation based on a person's sexual orientation so much as it's based on a couple's orientation, and couples don't really have rights do they?
 
disneydude said:
I can't say that I disagree with your post in a theoretical sense. However, in application it is quite different. You can point to pretty much every decision that is labeled "Judicial Activism" by the right-wing and see that it does not involve ignoring precedent, but is actually based on logical application of that precedent.
Click to expand...
You mean the way Roe v Wade was the logical application of the precedent of substantive due process set forth in Dred Scott v Sanford
 
celticlord said:
You mean the way Roe v Wade was the logical application of the precedent of substantive due process set forth in Dred Scott v Sanford
Click to expand...

Let me put it this way...I've seen much much MUCH worse contortions of the law and flat out fabrication by Scalia in his attempts to justify his incomprehensible opinions. Rehnquist was another one who's opinions defied logic. Then you have Scalito and Thomas who basically have no mind of their own and just follow whatever Scalia says....and yet...you never hear the right-wing cry about these "activist" judges.....wonder why?
 
disneydude said:
Let me put it this way...I've seen much much MUCH worse contortions of the law and flat out fabrication by Scalia in his attempts to justify his incomprehensible opinions. Rehnquist was another one who's opinions defied logic. Then you have Scalito and Thomas who basically have no mind of their own and just follow whatever Scalia says....and yet...you never hear the right-wing cry about these "activist" judges.....wonder why?
Click to expand...

Still waiting...
 
disneydude said:
Let me put it this way...I've seen much much MUCH worse contortions of the law and flat out fabrication by Scalia in his attempts to justify his incomprehensible opinions. Rehnquist was another one who's opinions defied logic. Then you have Scalito and Thomas who basically have no mind of their own and just follow whatever Scalia says....and yet...you never hear the right-wing cry about these "activist" judges.....wonder why?
Click to expand...
Not at all. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are not "activist" justices. Granted, they do not attempt to resolve mythic issues of "justice" as liberals would have them do, but that's judicial restraint, not judicial activism.
 
disneydude said:
There is no "Random" redefining of marriage. It is actually a very well supported decision based on years of legal precedent and logical application of equal protection jurisprudence.
Click to expand...
Marriage has never been defined as between people of the same sex or equal protection allowing that in the US federal gov't or those states. It is random and judicial activism I'm afraid.

To put it simply, if the government involves itself in allowing people to enter into legal contracts, why should the government involve itself it defining who should be able to enter into that contract based on race, gender, age or sexual orientation. Its actually very logical
Click to expand...
Because there has to be boundaries on those things, they have been decided historically, such as marriage being between two people of opposite sex over a certain age etc, and now the arbitrary power of this liberal committee on public safety is being used to randomly redefine that.

It may be logical and good to you but that is no excuse for the use of dangerous means.
 
I was going to spend time reading this whole thread through, but once I started to read the typical arguments about activist judges and blah blah blah, I just skipped to the last page. It's nice to see the branches of government doing their job and delivering a fair ruling that is not done without any sneakiness or obscurity. I'm contented to just accept this and move on.
 
Orius said:
I was going to spend time reading this whole thread through, but once I started to read the typical arguments about activist judges and blah blah blah, I just skipped to the last page. It's nice to see the branches of government doing their job and delivering a fair ruling that is not done without any sneakiness or obscurity. I'm contented to just accept this and move on.
Click to expand...
That is a nice thing to see. Pity that we did not see that in Iowa, but instead saw the judiciary doing something not their job (creating new law) and delivering an unfair ruling, which is not improved for having been done openly.
 
celticlord said:
That is a nice thing to see. Pity that we did not see that in Iowa, but instead saw the judiciary doing something not their job (creating new law) and delivering an unfair ruling, which is not improved for having been done openly.
Click to expand...

What law did they create?
 
winston53660 said:
What law did they create?
Click to expand...
They specifically rewrote Iowa statutes to affirmatively allow same sex marriage.

Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil
marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the
remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner
allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil
marriage.
Click to expand...

That is rewriting the law.
 
emdash said:
but DO units--self-formed ones at that--have rights aside from the rights each member has as an individual?
Click to expand...

I guess that the whole, "you can't discriminate against blacks" and separate but equal or "you can't discriminate against women" voting thing doesn't make sense if "you can discriminate against homosexuals" getting married to a person of their own sexual orientation.
 
iowa.gif
 
Slippery Slope said:
Iowa has been pretty progressive lately... maybe they are the 21st century version of the 17th century Kansas. Hopefully they won't devolve like Kansas.
Click to expand...

I don't think progressive is the world, I think it is fair. They are being pretty fair to everyone.
 
Orius said:
I was going to spend time reading this whole thread through, but once I started to read the typical arguments about activist judges and blah blah blah, I just skipped to the last page. It's nice to see the branches of government doing their job and delivering a fair ruling that is not done without any sneakiness or obscurity. I'm contented to just accept this and move on.
Click to expand...

The point of having separation of powers is to guard against arbitrary power which is what judicial activism is. The point is that the branches look after their own spheres not have one or two(because though the judiciary threatens to break down the rule of law and separation of powers the extra danger is the how the executive can use this.) become supreme over all spheres. Thomas Jefferson was right all those years ago.

Please at least try and give an argument for your position when you applaud arbitrary power.
 
thabigred said:
I don't think progressive is the world, I think it is fair. They are being pretty fair to everyone.
Click to expand...
Courts are not supposed to be "fair", "just", or any similar nonsense. They are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the law.

Fairness is for legislatures, politicians, and the voters. Judges are only "fair" if they are impartial arbiters of the law.

Consequently, the Iowa Supreme Court, being a most partial arbiter in this case, was decidedly "unfair".
 
Slippery Slope said:
Could the citizens of California decide to put women's suffrage to a public referendum?
Click to expand...
Technically, I suppose they could. The resultant law would automatically fail because of the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution.

They could vote on it, but the results would be meaningless.
 
celticlord said:
Courts are not supposed to be "fair", "just", or any similar nonsense. They are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the law.

Fairness is for legislatures, politicians, and the voters. Judges are only "fair" if they are impartial arbiters of the law.

Consequently, the Iowa Supreme Court, being a most partial arbiter in this case, was decidedly "unfair".
Click to expand...

All you can expect from a law is to be fair, you are contradicting your own rhetoric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom