In the Iowa State Bar Association Newsletter on July 12 there is a referral to the article by Ed Tibbets. It refers the readers by a link to the Iowa Capital Dispatch where the full article is shown. The newsletter goes out to over 5000 members.
Thanks Ed for broaching this topic. Impeachment for unpopular opinions is dangerous and there are other options. In past years, SCOTUS would issue opinions (Loving, Gault, Brown, Griswold, that at the time were unpopular with the general public. Over time, public opinion on these opinions shifted, first nuanced, and then as with Loving, shifted into the realm of 90+% of the public supporting interracial marriage. I am careful to avoid citing public opinions to criticize or support opinions of the high court; more appropriate to use polling for other 2 branches of government. Back to our judges. I believe there will be pressure to impeach the Iowa judges, in addition to the outcomes of this special session. I would like to see other pushback; like legislators proposing a pro choice constitutional amendment-it will fail in the legislature, but will be remembered and used in the political arena.
Hi, Ralph. I take your point about opinion polls. I do think it was interesting that a majority believes the justices’ political views are a major determinant of their opinions -- and this has risen over the past year. I think this is something that all of us who care about a credible court should be concerned with.
Your observation could also me a separate essay. What does it mean in society when our independent judiciary defends its decisions based, in part, on an individual judge declaration they know what they majority of Americans think and want. Those words are to be expected to be uttered by all these Prez candidates.
Ed, I am in total agreement, that current supreme court decisions have ignored president and are making decisions based on their political and religious views. Citizen United, Roe vs. Wade, Affirmative Actions and their latest ruling in a case concerning LGBTQ community in which they said you can refuse service to someone you don't agree with based on your religious views, will open all kinds of discrimination, leading to the possibility of the return to Jim Crow laws. What makes this decision most egregious is, there was no case brought before the court, no one was harmed, the couple involved never brought a suit, yet the supreme court made a ruling. If that is not the perfect example of judicial overreach, then I have to wonder what is. Perhaps I have too high of expectations for them knowing they can't even police themselves from obvious conflicts of interests.
I'm not sure that I'd site the opinions of AOC or Bob Vander Plaats as being thoughtful and well-reasoned; one man's opinion.
With regard to the article relative to the recent ruling by the SCOTUS, it would seem they've taken a more strict interpretation of the Constitution than the dissenters seemingly have done. It's a pendulum that swings from side-to-side. During this period it seems we're witnessing a return to a more strict view vs. that which has happened in previous courts.
Considering the question the article's headline asks, the answer should be a resounding, "No." A better question is what is the will of the electorate and the consequences of thereof. The Supreme Court is a reflection of elections gone by with effects that last for decades. This court will change; some will like the new court and others won't. That's the beauty of this great nation; we don't have to agree but we should always be respectful.
Hi, Mike. Happy Thursday to you, too. The point I was trying to make is that pursuing the ouster of any of these justices based on the opinions at issue here is absurd. On that, I believe we agree.
In the Iowa State Bar Association Newsletter on July 12 there is a referral to the article by Ed Tibbets. It refers the readers by a link to the Iowa Capital Dispatch where the full article is shown. The newsletter goes out to over 5000 members.
Thanks, Elvin. I hope the article is well received.
Thanks Ed for broaching this topic. Impeachment for unpopular opinions is dangerous and there are other options. In past years, SCOTUS would issue opinions (Loving, Gault, Brown, Griswold, that at the time were unpopular with the general public. Over time, public opinion on these opinions shifted, first nuanced, and then as with Loving, shifted into the realm of 90+% of the public supporting interracial marriage. I am careful to avoid citing public opinions to criticize or support opinions of the high court; more appropriate to use polling for other 2 branches of government. Back to our judges. I believe there will be pressure to impeach the Iowa judges, in addition to the outcomes of this special session. I would like to see other pushback; like legislators proposing a pro choice constitutional amendment-it will fail in the legislature, but will be remembered and used in the political arena.
Hi, Ralph. I take your point about opinion polls. I do think it was interesting that a majority believes the justices’ political views are a major determinant of their opinions -- and this has risen over the past year. I think this is something that all of us who care about a credible court should be concerned with.
Your observation could also me a separate essay. What does it mean in society when our independent judiciary defends its decisions based, in part, on an individual judge declaration they know what they majority of Americans think and want. Those words are to be expected to be uttered by all these Prez candidates.
Ed, I am in total agreement, that current supreme court decisions have ignored president and are making decisions based on their political and religious views. Citizen United, Roe vs. Wade, Affirmative Actions and their latest ruling in a case concerning LGBTQ community in which they said you can refuse service to someone you don't agree with based on your religious views, will open all kinds of discrimination, leading to the possibility of the return to Jim Crow laws. What makes this decision most egregious is, there was no case brought before the court, no one was harmed, the couple involved never brought a suit, yet the supreme court made a ruling. If that is not the perfect example of judicial overreach, then I have to wonder what is. Perhaps I have too high of expectations for them knowing they can't even police themselves from obvious conflicts of interests.
Hi Ed,
A very happy Thursday to you!
I'm not sure that I'd site the opinions of AOC or Bob Vander Plaats as being thoughtful and well-reasoned; one man's opinion.
With regard to the article relative to the recent ruling by the SCOTUS, it would seem they've taken a more strict interpretation of the Constitution than the dissenters seemingly have done. It's a pendulum that swings from side-to-side. During this period it seems we're witnessing a return to a more strict view vs. that which has happened in previous courts.
Considering the question the article's headline asks, the answer should be a resounding, "No." A better question is what is the will of the electorate and the consequences of thereof. The Supreme Court is a reflection of elections gone by with effects that last for decades. This court will change; some will like the new court and others won't. That's the beauty of this great nation; we don't have to agree but we should always be respectful.
Mike Freemire
Hi, Mike. Happy Thursday to you, too. The point I was trying to make is that pursuing the ouster of any of these justices based on the opinions at issue here is absurd. On that, I believe we agree.
Thanks Ed. I missed that along the way and through the 1st cup of coffee this morning.
Maybe I'll see you at the end of RAGBRAI in Davenport.
Have a great day!
Mike
I’d like that