Scalia on Peter Robinson's "Uncommon Knowledge"

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

In other words, no you haven't read it, and no you didn't know that was the basis of their ruling.

Thanks for your insight.

Doesn't change the fact that it's judicial tyranny. You're just deflecting.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Doesn't change the fact that it's judicial tyranny. You're just deflecting.

No, Tex, it establishes that you don't have a clue whether or not it is judicial tyranny. Nothing in your hyperbole establishes a "fact" of anything other than you don't know what you are talking about.

[Indy Coug]

Well Cali, since you're implying you know what you're talking about, would you care to share what constitutional basis the Iowa judiciary had?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Well Cali, since you're implying you know what you're talking about, would you care to share what constitutional basis the Iowa judiciary had?

I didn't imply I know what I am talking about with respect to the Iowa Constitution, which is why I haven't opined one way or the other. What I can say with 100% certainty is that Tex is totally unaware of any substantive foundation for his claim that what the Iowa court did was "judicial tyranny."

[Tex]

I've not read the Iowa Constitution nor the actual full text of the ruling, and I don't think one has to in order to form a legitimate opinion. This is yet another completely irrelevant Cali Coug distraction.

What I have read are news articles discussing the ruling, and commentary by court watchers whose opinion and expertise I trust. But even then, it doesn't take a great deal of expertise to see that there is no right to gay marriage written into the Iowa Constitution. The Iowa justices had to make it up as they went, citing their equal protection clause ... which coincidentally is probably one of the most abused clauses of our own US Constitution.

This was judicial activism. There is no other name for it.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I've not read the Iowa Constitution nor the actual full text of the ruling, and I don't think one has to in order to form a legitimate opinion. This is yet another completely irrelevant Cali Coug distraction.

What I have read are news articles discussing the ruling, and commentary by court watchers whose opinion and expertise I trust. But even then, it doesn't take a great deal of expertise to see that there is no right to gay marriage written into the Iowa Constitution. The Iowa justices had to make it up as they went, citing their equal protection clause ... which coincidentally is probably one of the most abused clauses of our own US Constitution.

This was judicial activism. There is no other name for it.

Tex- you simply have no idea what the Iowa Constitution says. You have no basis for knowing how Iowa has determined its constitutional provisions should apply. You don't know any of the history of the adoption of their Constitution, nor do you know anything regarding cases interpreting it. And yet, here you are telling all of us that what Iowa did was TYRANNY! JUDICIAL TYRANNY! Whatever. You sound like Glen Beck more and more often.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Tex- you simply have no idea what the Iowa Constitution says. You have no basis for knowing how Iowa has determined its constitutional provisions should apply. You don't know any of the history of the adoption of their Constitution, nor do you know anything regarding cases interpreting it. And yet, here you are telling all of us that what Iowa did was TYRANNY! JUDICIAL TYRANNY! Whatever. You sound like Glen Beck more and more often.

Nonsense. I reject this ridiculous notion that one most possess intimate knowledge of Iowan constitutional history and case law to form a valid opinion on this ruling.

This is governmental abuse of power. It's anti-democratic. It's seven judges inserting their own policy preferences into the law by fiat. Laws like this should be passed by the people, not illegitimately interpreted into a text by an unelected judiciary.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Tex

Scalia continues to be proven right. If you can't convince your fellow man, just convince a few judges. Minority rule.

Iowa Supreme Court unanimously legalizes gay marriage in Iowa.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/art.../NEWS/90403010

This quote from one of the judges was interesting:

“We are firmly convinced that the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective,” the court said in an opinion written by Justice Mark Cady. “The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.”

Is it written in the Iowa Constitution that anyone - straight or gay - has a right to marry? If not, how can he claim insufficient constitutional justification.

Archaea? You're opinion is one that I respect. Perhaps you could explain this to a non-lawyer.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Nonsense. I reject this ridiculous notion that one most possess intimate knowledge of Iowan constitutional history and case law to form a valid opinion on this ruling.

This is governmental abuse of power. It's anti-democratic. It's seven judges inserting their own policy preferences into the law by fiat. Laws like this should be passed by the people, not illegitimately interpreted into a text by an unelected judiciary.

"Intimate" knowledge? How about ANY knowledge? You have no idea what the text even says. You simply hear "equal protection clause" and assume it MUST be just like the US Constitutional counterpart, and the justices MUST have totally misconstrued the provision. TYRANNY! Shout away, Glen Beck. It is so much easier than actually learning something so you can have an informed opinion.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

This quote from one of the judges was interesting:



Is it written in the Iowa Constitution that anyone - straight or gay - has a right to marry? If not, how can he claim insufficient constitutional justification.

Archaea? You're opinion is one that I respect. Perhaps you could explain this to a non-lawyer.

And Il Pad shows himself to be more open to reason and learning than Tex. I guess that is mildly surprising, but only mildly so.