In Case You Thought It Was Over in Iowa

It isn’t.

Those who want to oust the three justices argue that by striking down a law banning gay marriage, the high court in effect, amended the state constitution, which can only be done through a referendum. They say the justices were legislating from the bench, and should therefore be removed.

“We are going to send a message all the way across America. These judges are rogue judges and they’re arrogant,” Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King told the crowd Monday, standing in front of a bus emblazoned with the justices faces with the word “No,” superimposed on them.

Des Moines resident Art Arrett, who attended the rally, said legislating should be left to legislators, not judges.

“It’s not their job to make laws,” Arrett said.

A.

4 thoughts on “In Case You Thought It Was Over in Iowa

  1. dr2chase says:

    Brown v Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, Griswold v. Connecticut.
    Darn those activist courts!!!

    Like

  2. …soCitizens United v. FEC means we can have five impeachment trials in Congress? If striking down laws because they are not deemed to pass constitutional muster is “making law” and a constitutional violation, there’s gonna be a whole lot of impeachments going on at both the state and federal level across this great nation of ours…

    Like

  3. thebewilderness says:

    I suppose that is the trouble with writing a Constitution that claims every citizen has the same rights. Next thing you know someone will try to enforce it.

    Like

  4. montag says:

    Ah, well, Marbury v. Madison cuts both ways, asshole. Saying something is unconstitutional isn’t writing new law–it’s merely pruning out legislative fuck-ups (in theory, anyway).
    Hell, King is just a giant asshole with ears.

    Like

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: