Conservative activists campaigning to defeat Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins in Iowa’s Nov. 6 judicial retention vote are enlisting the help of some big-name Republicans.
Leaders of Iowans for Freedom, a project of the Pleasant Hill-based Family Leader organization, announced Tuesday that former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum -- who won the Iowa caucus in January -- and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal will participate in a statewide “No Wiggins” bus tour designed to focus opposition to judicial activism.
... “The judiciary’s usurpation of authority in recent years is completely unacceptable,” Santorum said in a statement. “It is obviously clear the people’s Constitution gives the judicial branch the least power, and yet these appointed judges continuously legislate from the bench whether it is gay marriage in Iowa, collective bargaining in Wisconsin, or resulting in the death of millions of lives caused by the opinion of Roe v. Wade.”
The “No Wiggins” bus tour -- sponsored by CitizenLink, Patriot Voices, the Family Leader, the National Organization for Marriage and CatholicVote.org -- seeks to mobilize opposition among Iowa voters to oust Wiggins.
16 Comments
"Activist" judges are in place to stop popular uproar and attacks on minority groups or knee jerk laws that infrnige on our rights. The separate, but equal is one example of judicial activism that recognized a problem with a popular law. We need judges that use the court room to strip away superstition and unsubstantiated opinion to make sure we are all treated equal under the laws.
"knee jerk laws"
@Richard - the whole point of the legislative process is to require deliberation of a group of individuals accountable to the People before any law can pass. That's why the role of judges is not to make law, but merely to determine whether a law is constitutional or not; otherwise, the slow and deliberative process is usurped.
What are you going to do when the next conservative POTUS appoints ultra-conservative federal judges to the bench? Will you still be preaching about the need for judicial activism? Of course not, you'll (rightly) be whining that the legislature is the designated law-making body of the government.
Jindall, Santorum; give'em hell. The Constitution isn't a living document.
Marriage is not a right. You are separate but equal now. NO ONE is allowed to marry someone of the same sex, whether they be hetero or homosexual.
'Unsubstantiated opinion'? I guess that's only if you disagree with it.
Ah, Richard, the wholly unfounded "separate but equal" argument for SSM. As no law exists which names those with SSA, a gay political identity, or homosexual behavior from entering into marriage, that claim is utterly false. All citizens are treated equally, under the law, as is fair and just. Anyone can marry. Choosing not to, because one doesn't like the opposite-sexed requirement of marriage doesn't mean one is forcibly banned from said institution. Now, speaking of 'separate but equal," SSM promotes the segregation of the sexes in marriage. For example, two men who "marry" are, in essence, saying, a woman can get married, just not to me. That's like saying a woman can ride the bus--in the back. Separate. Yeah.
The comment in post #1 is your typical lie. If you obey the law equally like everybody else then you have the right. Since when can one decide to make up their own law and when it is not recognized then equallity is denied.
By the way we do not need to give equallity when things are not equal. 2 is not equal to 3 even thought they both are numbers. Male/Female unions procreate while same sex unions do not, so they are not equal.
Do not give equallity when equallity does not exist.
SSM is already legal in the US. When one state made that a legalitly it becomes legal in all states. Courts just have to enforce that. DOMA is unconstitutional and will be determined that way. It is clear that we are all NOT treated equal under the law. My marriage in one state was recognized by another state without having to reapply. So, all people are not treated equally- hence the violation of the 14th amendment. Your circular logic and downright disparagement of gay people is truly appalling and without basis- you know unsubstantiated.
Actually, making SSM legal in one state does NOT make it legal in all states, wishful thinking not excepted. More than half of the United States have specifically made it illegal, in fact. Courts don't have the right to legislate from the bench, nor do they enjoy the right to redefine an institution not created nor mandated by government. That is not a power granted by the people. That power continues to be invested in the people. Remember, the government and the courts belong to the people--not the other way around. The thing to do is not to overturn DOMA, which recognizes the fact that marriages are opposite-sexed unions by persons not closely related (as defined by the states), recognized, licenced and regulated by the government for the sole purpose of promoting and endorsing responsible procreation. The thing to do is to end the sham which is SSM, reassign former SS"M"s to reciprocal beneficiaries, thus continuing to uphold the 14th amendment and recognize legal unions which fall outside of actual marriage. It takes a wife to make a husband and a husband to make a wife. Sexual orientation cannot change that. Reciprocal beneficiaries would benefit more SS couples, many who continue to fall outside of SSM because the majority of them are already related. That makes things truly equal for all SS couples, not just those who like to call themselves "gay."
Richard we are in a circular loop because you are now basing your argument on the activism of judges which forced gay marriage on us form a wrongly interpreted state judges viewing of the constitution. Finding a right to gay marriage in a document that did not contain such a "right". which of course is what the original argument is about activist judges. You can not use one argument to support another point of contention without first establishing the prior argument as being valid.
Living Straight: no, courts did not impose it in all the current states. Politicians did.
Are you a judge? A Constitutional expert?
Have you ever heard of full faith clause?
Why is Jindal getting involved in the affairs of another state?
Why is NOM supporting NoWiggins campaign who have published lies all over the tour bus?
the least one could expect from Christians is the truth. I looked at the clip on NoWiggins site and also at the full video of the deposition hearings. Such outright lies from Christians. It makes me despair of finding an honest Christian. None around here for sure.
@Paul
", courts did not impose it in all the current states. Politicians did."
That's only half true. Courts were mostly responsible for it. It was only recently that politicians started handling the issue.
"Why is Jindal getting involved in the affairs of another state?"
Why is Diane Feinstein imposing her world views on the states with her Respect For Marriage Act? Isn't she getting involved with the affairs of other states? Or is it only "getting involved" if a Conservative decides to join in?
"Have you ever heard of full faith clause?"
Full Faith and Credits Clause is how policies like DOMA were established. But this argument goes both ways. You think that states should recognize the gay marriage laws of another. Or shouldn't states like Massachusetts recognize a states right to define their own Marriage law?
Living in New York — which Obama is sure to win — I will be voting write-in for Rick Santorum as President and Bobby Jindal as Vice President.
Let me help the above poster John Noe as his post was excellent and got to the heart of the matter.
SSM is already legal in the US. When one state made that a legalitly it becomes legal in all states.
That is an absolute ridiculus lie. Since when can somebody violate the laws of another state. Other states have different gun laws and drinking laws. Just because one can drink legally in one state does not mean likewise in another. No way when one state makes something legal it becomes legal in all states.
DOMA is constitutional as it protects the 10th amendment rights of all states. Ever heard of states rights as it is in the Constitution. Everyone is treated equally under the law as the one man/one woman applies equally to everybody thus no violation of the 14th Amedment.
Your circular illogic and downright disparagement of people who believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is truly appalling and without basis- you know unsubstantiated.
John N: I would state that Full Faith Clause re: ssm has not been resolved by the Courts as yet.
A presidential candidate who doesn't know what checks and balances are?
Overturning a law whose SOLE PURPOSE was to harm Americans--not to do something good at certain people's expense but *just* to hurt people that y'all hate--is not legislation. It is *exactly* what they are *required* to do.
@OSSA: If a president uses his or her power to appoint judges that he or she knows will violate the Constitution just because of how much they all hate the same group of Americans, there will be nothing left of this nation to save except its people--and this is what we'll need to be saved from. After all, the Constitution would be dead.
@David: Marriage isn't a Constitutional right, but equal treatment is. Since marriage laws exist, they must treat everybody equally. This is not hard.
Also, freedom of religion. I know y'all like to scream those words as a battle cry, but it actually exists so everything y'try to enact in law is a mite un-Constitutional.
Pat, you'll be pleased to know that individual citizens already are treated equally, when it comes to marriage law. Marriage license applications don't require any info. regarding sexuality.