If you are complaining about the Iowa Supreme Court then you won't be satisfied with anything that resembles a court.
I'll admit the Iowa court sometimes reaches seemingly odd conclusions but if you know anything about the composition of the court, you'd quietly take the L and then go back to the drawing board.
"In our view, it is legislating from the bench to take a statute that was moribund when it was enacted and has been enjoined for four years and then to put it into effect."
What the court is basically saying is that just because the court is MORE conservative now than the court that ruled against the ban, doesn't mean the court won't stand by its previous decision.
Because the Iowa court is first and foremost a lawyer's court (composed of lawyers and picked from a short list drafted by lawyers). And one thing the Iowa court will almost never do is say it was wrong.
The state will have to go back and look at what the court actually disagreed with about the ban.
"In our view, it is legislating from the bench to take a statute that was moribund when it was enacted and has been enjoined for four years and then to put it into effect."
I don't see how. Courts don't "strike down" laws. They hold that they are incompatible with a higher law, in which case the higher law prevails. When that (interpretation of the) higher law disappears, as in this case, then it makes sense that the lower law is no longer incompatible with the higher law.
I can see why this would be desirable, I just don't see the logical basis for it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Every bit as much as the media, the judiciary is the enemy of the people.
If you are complaining about the Iowa Supreme Court then you won't be satisfied with anything that resembles a court.
I'll admit the Iowa court sometimes reaches seemingly odd conclusions but if you know anything about the composition of the court, you'd quietly take the L and then go back to the drawing board.
"In our view, it is legislating from the bench to take a statute that was moribund when it was enacted and has been enjoined for four years and then to put it into effect."
What the court is basically saying is that just because the court is MORE conservative now than the court that ruled against the ban, doesn't mean the court won't stand by its previous decision.
Because the Iowa court is first and foremost a lawyer's court (composed of lawyers and picked from a short list drafted by lawyers). And one thing the Iowa court will almost never do is say it was wrong.
The state will have to go back and look at what the court actually disagreed with about the ban.
I don't see how. Courts don't "strike down" laws. They hold that they are incompatible with a higher law, in which case the higher law prevails. When that (interpretation of the) higher law disappears, as in this case, then it makes sense that the lower law is no longer incompatible with the higher law.
I can see why this would be desirable, I just don't see the logical basis for it.
If it makes more sense, the subtext of A LOT of Iowa supreme court rulings can be read as "do it again, but properly this time".
If you have any doubts about the court, just remember they also came up with this ruling...