I’d love for opponents of same-sex marriage – espcially those in Iowa, who voted to turf three Supreme Court judges who ruled that there was a constitutional right to same – to explain why, if they’re so concerned about the institution of marriage, they aren’t up in arms about this:
More here. You know someone at TLC got fired for not coming up with this idea first.
Update: Above the Law‘s Elie Mystal explains why the Iowa case illustrates the problem with voting on judges:
…We the people not we the courts? So is there to be no “check” on “the people,” even when they want to do something unconstitutional?
It goes to the heart of the problem with judicial elections. “The people” are horrible arbiters of constitutional interpretation. For instance, I’ve talked a lot of crap about Anthony Kennedy over Citizens United, but I shouldn’t be able to vote in my constitutional interpretation over his. I’m just some guy, Kennedy has dedicated his life to studying the issue. I think he’s wrong, but what I, and 50% plus one of my friends think shouldn’t really be part of the discussion. Shouldn’t there be at least one branch of government that isn’t subject to the slings and arrows of the uninformed mob?
Congress should be beholden to the people. The President should be beholden to the country, and then the people. Judges should be beholden to the law. They have enough trouble doing that when they are appointed for life. Surely, putting them up for periodic elections only further obscures their true constituency.