Dissenting Opinions

A reader writes to say I changed his mind on retention with my Tuesday column. He's now voting to throw the justices out:

I have been struggling within my mind for many weeks now about the issue of the Supreme Court judicial retention vote. I have been leaning toward voting for retention, but your column today (Tuesday, October 19, 2010) did much toward changing my mind.In my opinion, there are some compelling arguments toward retaining the Supreme Court justices. Our government is based on the rule of law, and the supreme law of the state of Iowa is our state constitution. Within both our state constitution and the constitution of the United States, there is a strict separation of powers. This separation is designed as a system of checks and balances so that no branch of government becomes too powerful. One of the Supreme Court's specific duties under the constitution is to determine whether or not a given law passed by the legislative and executive branches is consistent with the principles set forth in the constitution. Whether a given justice personally agrees with a law or not is irrelevant; it matters only if it is constitutional. Even if a defense attorney strongly believes that his client is guilty of the accused crime, he still has a duty to give a rigorous defense at trial. It can be distasteful at times, but that duty must be fulfilled, or the court system will not work. Likewise, the Supreme Court justices must put their personal feelings aside and do their duty. Just as a defense attorney should not be punished for defending a guilty client, the justices should not be punished for doing their duty regarding the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage law.Unfortunately, your column did not address these arguments. Instead, it addressed the relative merits and demerits of the law itself, such as who makes better parents, whose heterosexual marriages have been harmed, etc. If and when this issue comes to vote before the general population or again before the legislature, then these arguments will become relevant, but not now.Your column did serve the purpose of helping me see why others are going to vote against retaining the justices. You seem unable or unwilling to comprehend that many people have strong personal feelings about what marriage and family mean. You also seem unable or unwilling to admit that reasonable, thinking individuals can have differences of opinion on issues. I do not know exactly why Mr. Vander Plaats has chosen his current course of action, but I do know that many of those who are going to vote against retaining the justices are doing so because they feel that they have no other recourse, and that those in power, such as yourself, dismiss their deeply-held beliefs as stupid, archaic, or worthless.If you truly want to see the Supreme Court justices retained, you might want to try making a reasonable argument about the rule of law and the duties of the justices and leave the condescension, the insults, and the I'm-smarter-than-you attitude out next time. You also might want to try leaving out the profanity. There are many of us who find it unprofessional, and I am less likely to be impressed by one's arguments if they are so weak that profanity must be used to express them. I am also less likely to be impressed by the person using it.

In my opinion, there are some compelling arguments toward retaining the Supreme Court justices. Our government is based on the rule of law, and the supreme law of the state of Iowa is our state constitution. Within both our state constitution and the constitution of the United States, there is a strict separation of powers. This separation is designed as a system of checks and balances so that no branch of government becomes too powerful. One of the Supreme Court's specific duties under the constitution is to determine whether or not a given law passed by the legislative and executive branches is consistent with the principles set forth in the constitution. Whether a given justice personally agrees with a law or not is irrelevant; it matters only if it is constitutional. Even if a defense attorney strongly believes that his client is guilty of the accused crime, he still has a duty to give a rigorous defense at trial. It can be distasteful at times, but that duty must be fulfilled, or the court system will not work. Likewise, the Supreme Court justices must put their personal feelings aside and do their duty. Just as a defense attorney should not be punished for defending a guilty client, the justices should not be punished for doing their duty regarding the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage law.

Unfortunately, your column did not address these arguments. Instead, it addressed the relative merits and demerits of the law itself, such as who makes better parents, whose heterosexual marriages have been harmed, etc. If and when this issue comes to vote before the general population or again before the legislature, then these arguments will become relevant, but not now.

Your column did serve the purpose of helping me see why others are going to vote against retaining the justices. You seem unable or unwilling to comprehend that many people have strong personal feelings about what marriage and family mean. You also seem unable or unwilling to admit that reasonable, thinking individuals can have differences of opinion on issues. I do not know exactly why Mr. Vander Plaats has chosen his current course of action, but I do know that many of those who are going to vote against retaining the justices are doing so because they feel that they have no other recourse, and that those in power, such as yourself, dismiss their deeply-held beliefs as stupid, archaic, or worthless.

If you truly want to see the Supreme Court justices retained, you might want to try making a reasonable argument about the rule of law and the duties of the justices and leave the condescension, the insults, and the I'm-smarter-than-you attitude out next time. You also might want to try leaving out the profanity. There are many of us who find it unprofessional, and I am less likely to be impressed by one's arguments if they are so weak that profanity must be used to express them. I am also less likely to be impressed by the person using it.

And another sent this:

Don't you find it the least bit hypocritical as you continue on your one issue crusade that you tell people not to judge the judges based on one ruling but yet this is the only issue you seem to ever write about. Seriously. I'm voting no against them, not because of the issue but because I don't want judges making law or making interpretations. I care much more about other issues I don't want judges touching, so if this sends the message to them then that is what I have to do. You are crusading like people who would vote no against them are blithering idiots or whacked out bigots and that gets awfully tiresome. Typical liberal bs.