Bobby Jindal: Some Judges Make NFL Replacement Refs Look Like Geniuses



Bobby Jindal on No Wiggins Bus Tour

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal on Wednesday joined the No Wiggins Bus Tour sponsored by Iowans for Freedom, The FAMiLY Leader, CitizenLink, Patriot Voices,National Organization for Marriage and CatholicVote.org.  The tour wrapped up yesterday after four days and 17 stops.  In Marshalltown, IA, Bobby Jindal spoke following speeches given by Brian Brown of National Organization for Marriage, Tamara Scott who is the co-chair of Iowans for Freedom and Bob Vander Plaats who is the chairman of Iowans for Freedom.

The first half of his speech as the first seven minutes was focused on President Obama which seemed off message.  His remarks were like two separate speeches.  Below is that section of his remarks and in those remarks about the Presidential election he didn’t mention Mitt Romney by name.  Instead he just listed reasons why Iowans needed to make President Obama a one-term President by highlighting broken promises and how his values are different than ours.  Jindal said that the White House seems to a full-time person just to say “no he didn’t mean to say that” whenever President Obama strays from the teleprompter.

 

He then launched into the judiciary after saying this election is a fight for our values both at the national and state level.  He then leveled a humorous critique of the judiciary saying, “Some of these judges make the replacement referees in the NFL look like geniuses by comparison.”

He shared an example from Louisiana where a judge when faced with a case where a stepfather had raped his 9-year-old stepdaughter who is now unable to have children as a result.  Louisiana at that time gave juries an option of recommending the death penalty for child rapists, and that was the sentence this man received.  The judge in the case not only overturned the death penalty in that particular case, but struck down all death penalties for child rapists.  He decided this based on a growing national consensus against the death penalty in those circumstances.

Governor Jindal then said, “Somebody has got to tell me where in the Constitution that I don’t see in my copy, where in the Constitution does it say that our Supreme Justices, that our courts are supposed to look to opinion polls when they decide cases.  I thought it was their job to simply read the Constitution.”

He pointed out that Iowa Supreme Court Justice, David Wiggins, wasn’t satisfied with his full-time job on the Iowa Supreme Court that he seemed like he wanted to do the job of the Governor and Legislature as well.

“I don’t have a problem with Justice Wiggins proposing his liberal views,” Jindal said.  “I don’t have any problem with him espousing his views on marriage or whatever else he chooses to opine on.   But if he wants to make law he needs to do that by running for the Legislature – not from the bench of the Supreme Court of the great state of Iowa.”

Jindal encouraged Iowans to take a stand against judicial activism saying, “We understand that there is separation of powers, that there are checks and balances built into our system.”  He noted that today it is marriage.  He said tomorrow it could be property rights or gun rights.

You can watch his remarks on the judiciary below:

Please read our comment policy before leaving a comment.

  • Iowacentric

    Criminy, what an ignorant jackass. ‘Governor Jindal then said, “Somebody has got to tell me where in the Constitution that I don’t see in my copy, where in the Constitution does it say that our Supreme Justices, that our courts are supposed to look to opinion polls when they decide cases.  I thought it was their job to simply read the Constitution.”’
    Um. Isn’t that the entire argument SUPPORTING the ISC? They followed their duty to uphold the constitution, despite public opinion on gay marriage. So how is that wrong in Iowa, but right in Louisiana?

    • http://shanevanderhart.com/ Shane Vander Hart

      No when they ordered that same sex marriage licenses be issued they legislated from the bench. That is his point, not so much their opinion on the law. Marriage, as traditionally defined, can be reasonably argued that it does not violate the Equal Protection clause as the issuance of marriage licenses have always been conditional based on age, number of parties involved, species, and consent.

      So who is ignorant? They should have bounced this back to the Legislature to be dealt with. I think it is arrogant to assume that the Constitution warrants a change in how marriage is defined. I’m sure the Founders would agree, and there are plenty of quotes by our Founders warning of judicial activism such as this.