imageShe would probably still have a job.

From a ruling that just came down today Galloway v. State.  I’m not familiar with the case, but what we should find interesting is what soon-to-be-former Chief Justice Ternus and Justice Mark Cady wrote in their dissent:

Courts are, at times, capable of deciding legal issues based on public policy. These times, however, occur when the public policy is clear and apparent. See Fitzgerald v. Salsbury Chem., Inc., 613 N.W.2d 275, 283 (Iowa 2000) (“The need for clarity in public policy is . . . recognized in our reluctance to search too far beyond our legislative pronouncements and constitution to find public policy to support an action.”). Otherwise, public policy is best left to our legislative branch of government to decide as representatives of the people. The question whether it is imprudent as a matter of law for a parent to waive legal liability on behalf of a child as a condition for the child‟s participation in an educational field trip is a matter for the legislature, not judges. If the subject of parental field trip waivers has surfaced in this state as a matter of public concern, the legislature can properly examine the issue and take any appropriate action. (emphasis mine)

Isn’t this what we’ve been saying about Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act?  What makes a public policy clear?  Well I guess it was clear in that DOMA was passed.  If the issue discussed was best handled legislatively why not the definition of marriage – which they already had.

Let’s be clear public policy is always best left to our legislative branch to decide as representatives of the people.  Now it’s time to remind Mike Gronstal that he does represent us, and that Iowans made their will pretty clear in the matter.

Anyway, if Chief Justice Ternus dissented on the DOMA ruling in the manner she dissented on Galloway v. State, I would have been happy to vote yes on retention because then I would have some confidence she understands her proper role.  Too little, too late I’m afraid.

HT: Dale Mastarone

5 comments
  1. Great post Shane, I couldn’t agree with you more.

    Apparently two of the Justices got the message that the voter’s of Iowa sent this past Tuesday. Now we need to bide our time to remove those that failed to understand the frustration of the citizen’s of Iowa.

  2. DOMA was a clear violation of Iowa’s Constitution. That’s why the Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY overturned it.

    Just because a law was passed doesn’t make it correct, legal, or enforceable.

    1. Really? How? The Iowa Constitution says nothing about marriage nor sexual preference, and if you think those who drafted the U.S. Constitution and the Iowa Constituton had this in mind… well, let’s just say your history, government and civics teachers failed you.

  3. There is a clear difference between the cases. The parents given written permission to someone else to be responsible in their place. When I read about the case, I wondered if adults would be reluctant to volunteer to lead scout troops, etc. if parent permission slips didn’t relieve them of liability.

    At no time did people in the LGBTQ community signed away their rights to equal protection under the law. Why, since nobody can show any harm, do other people even care? Please read the actual ruling, l Linked from desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010/Unanimous-ruling-Iowa-marriage-no-longer-limited-to-one-man-one-woman to understand that the justices had no choice if they were to be fair. (Voting them out changes nothing. They were neither activist nor liberal. The chief justice had even been appointed by Branstead!)

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Everybody Knows Except for Mike Huckabee

Steve Deace of WHO Radio in Des Moines knows.  Craig Robinson of…

The FAMiLY Leader Releases Calendar Leading to Iowa Caucus

The FAMiLY LEADER Foundation announced its 2015 calendar of candidate educational events leading up to the Iowa Caucus it will co-host with other partners.

Asset Forfeiture Law Passes Iowa Senate

Brad Zaun: Senate File 446 enhances property rights protections by shifting the burden of proof on law enforcement when it comes to civil asset forfeitures.

The Non-Controversy Surrounding Matt Whitaker’s Law Firm Ads

U.S. Senate candidate Matt Whitaker’s law firm is running radio ads touting their conservative bona fides and that has raised some eyebrows. It shouldn’t.