Here are two links to web sites and articles that provide key information as to why it is important to oppose the retention bid of Judge David Wiggins to the Iowa Supreme Court.
Iowans for Freedom, a project of the Family Leader is the prime mover of opposition. Their website nowiggins.com is very well done, makes important points, provides historical perspective and a number of resources. They key in on and substantiate three main points.
#1 Wiggins broke Iowa’s own judicial code of conduct.
#2 He is the worst rated Supreme Court Judge in a 50-year retention history as rated by the Iowa Bar Association.
#3 He made law from the bench. Judges and courts are not allowed to do that
An article yesterday in The Iowa Republican by Davenport attorney and legal scholar Nathan Tucker, provides a very compelling brief about Wiggins career of judicial activism Opposition to Wiggins’ retention is not limited to his joining in the Varnum decision forcing the recognition of gay marriage on Iowa. His record is replete with other examples of judicial activism which Tucker goes on to lay out in an accessible manor.
But from my more limited perspective it is enough that the Varnum marriage ruling Wiggins was part of was simply an outrage, it was an exercise of raw judicial power untempered by any deference to legal and historical norms or legislative prerogatives. The philosophy behind that ruling does not bode well for any social conservative legislation such judges do not agree with.
There is no way that the people of Iowa or their elected representatives in approving the Iowa Constitution or its amendments or various pertinent statutes EVER contemplated anything other than marriage in the common law, the well established cultural and traditional sense.
It was understood that marriage is an institution applying only to the relationship joined by one man and one woman. If anything other than that understanding were ever “on the table” at the time of the ratification or approval of the Iowa Constitution or related issues, well . . . it or related legislation would never have passed so constituted.
Some may try to maintain that “vagaries” in the law allow for such judicial activism. But in my humble judgment, to require specification of deep and normative cultural understandings is an absurd “requirement.” The Varnum decision is warmed over adolescent nonsense or pure high handed arbitrariness.
Tomorrow – One view on how to vote on the rest of the judges. R Mall
#4 Your name is Wiggins.