Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins vows he won’t stand quietly by if opponents of same-sex marriage launch a potent campaign to oust him from the bench.
“If someone wants to attack me, I’m not going to let them bully me,” Wiggins said in a telephone interview last week with The Des Moines Register. “If asked to, I’ll speak up for myself. The others didn’t do that last time. I will.”
Wiggins this fall will become the fourth member of Iowa’s highest court to stand for a retention vote since the court issued a landmark 2009 decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. The unanimous Varnum v. Brien decision, which outraged social conservatives, made Iowa the first Midwestern state to sanction gay marriage.
9 Comments
Good for justice Wiggins, these people do get rather ugly and it's great to see him stand up for what is right. The Varnum v Brien was a unanimous decision, much like Loving v VA, it too faces its foes.
Fortunately for Loving, the people back then were not as devious and underhanded as Rove and NOM.
Pete,
You are projecting again.
He is welcome to stand up for what he beleives. There is nothing wrong with it. But the power lies in the people. Not the judges. It is the people who put the judges in power. The people by law were given a right to oust any judge they see as wrong. In this case the judge doesn't represent the will of the people who put him in power. He can stand up for him self, but that only points more to his selfish interests and not the poeople's interests.
I smell a new meme coming. Voting = "bullying." What a crock. Wiggins needs a new job, preferably one that won't encourage his megalomania.
Hmm. "Methinks [he] doth protest, too much." Fair-minded citizens realize the value of the separation of powers, and they don't appreciate a judge who legislates from the bench, especially on an issue so important as the redefinition of marriage. The people who put him into his position have the right to question his judgement, and select a fellow citizen who will exercise better judgement, as well as confine him/herself to the boundaries of the judiciary, leaving the law-making to fellow citizens chosen to so do. No one can grant unto themselves power that we-the-people do not give them. That's the beauty of our republic. Judge Wiggins is feeling "bullied," because he bullied the people into SSM. But instead of defending the position he took, he's pulling an Alinski, and vilifying his accusers. Predictable. Judge Wiggins needs to remember that he puts his pants on the same way the rest of us do.
These retention votes are important as they cast the battle as elites versus the people. Eventually (and soon) a marriage amendment will get past the stymied legislature & obviously pass.
In the meantime these retention votes are changing the face of the Iowa courts and punishing justices who vote there progressive aims and dont follow the law.
FYI - There is a third element readers of this blog may not know. Judicial elites led by the Bar dont like elected State Suprme Courts. They had devised a plan an implemented it in Iowa. Under this plan the Governor is given a narrow field of potential candidates from an "independent" commision (read liberals appointed by the State bar) . He then "chooses" amoung a likeminded group of left leaning judges and the people vote up or down on a one sided field.
This "plan" was supposed to be implemented across multiple states that currently have elected judiciaries..
Then came same-sex "marriage" exposing how this plan slants a judiciary even in such a heavily traditionalist state like Iowa..
Then came the retention votes of 3 of the justices - they all lost!!!
So Iowa voters & same-sex "marriage" has helped expose and deligitimize this scheme of judicial elites to skew the make-up of State Supreme Courts.
Another example of the left shooting itself in the foot. No State will implement this policy now that it has been exposed!
These retention votes are important as they cast the battle as elites versus the people. Eventually (and soon) a marriage amendment will get past the stymied legislature & obviously pass.
In the meantime these retention votes are changing the face of the Iowa courts and punishing justices who vote there progressive aims and dont follow the law.
Wiggins is striking the pose of someone who does not wish to be held accountable for his actions.
The pro-SSM opinion of that court is wrong. He needs to make the case for that opinion, which he signed onto, rather than whine that the process in his state is open to his being held accountable for judicial over-reach.
Wow, Fitz, that's reason for outrage. Thanks for the insight.