Final Judgment?

The public has been lead to believe that there was no other course for the Iowa Supreme Court to take in their 2009 gay marriage ruling.

Onetime Justice Michael Streit was the latest to mouth that mantra with

“We didn’t take the law into our own hands,” Streit said. “The court had a duty to interpret the constitution and uphold the law. I don’t feel we did anything wrong. We had no politics involved.”

I noted last week (American Idiot), the court didn't even have to take the case and lo and behold this case shows I was correct.

Iowa Supreme Court declines to hear Creston police rape case

Another option the Supreme Court had was to refer the case to the Court of Appeals.

This certainly gives credence to those that believe the justices to be activists and the scientific community is united in that fact.

As long as I've mentioned the Supreme Court and Justices, I wonder why the concern now about who potential justices make political contributions to?

High court nominee Waterman was Branstad campaign donor

I don't recall such media scrutiny, only I and a few other bloggers remarked on it, when The Pickle or the Big Lug Nut made their choices of Brent Appel and David Baker during the previous 12 years.

























Probably a D and R thing.