"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 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...