"An incest exception requires a similar report within 140 days." WTF??? A kid who has been routinely abused by a relative is supposed to report it to the cops or a doctor? Even if they are brave enough to tell their parents (or parent if the other is doing the abusing) and even if the parent(s) then deny it could be happening? Uncle Harv…
"An incest exception requires a similar report within 140 days." WTF??? A kid who has been routinely abused by a relative is supposed to report it to the cops or a doctor? Even if they are brave enough to tell their parents (or parent if the other is doing the abusing) and even if the parent(s) then deny it could be happening? Uncle Harvey has been abusing a kid every single week for umpty years and the kid is supposed to report it EVERY SINGLE TIME on the off chance that THIS time a pregnancy will result?
"By 2021, however, the composition of the Iowa Supreme Court had changed" typifies one problem with our judicial system. Almost no one votes in judicial elections; even if the turnout is good for the election in general, many folks just skip the judges because they have no clue who these people are. Only those who really care bother--and those tend to be conservative because the conservatives, way more than the average person, even liberal, know the advantages of voting for judges who oppose the overall popular opinion on critical issues.
With the election of judges who want to push an agenda opposed to the overall preferences of the voters, the whole idea of "checks and balances" goes out the window. Instead of impartially looking at the law the courts can resort to dishonest doctrines or even dishonest reasoning. The Extremes (though of course not voted into office except indirectly) illustrate this with ideas like "originalism" or decisions like the Bremerton Coach case (which misrepresented the actual facts of the case) or Dobbs (which relied heavily on a Christian interpretation of human life to jettison constitutional protections) or the trend to ignore standing when the issue suits the agenda. I don't follow the details of state court decisions intensively--who has time--but I strongly suspect that the same dishonesty happens there when judges who oppose the popular will . Sometimes the popular will of an area may itself be unconstitutional--witness Jim Crow--but courts should at least be honest in being a check and balance to such preferences.
Now more than ever, with gerrymandering rampant, there needs to be a body that looks impartially at what the legislature, thus distorted, does. Thank god for the recusal in Iowa's latest decisions, but it very much looks like any new law will not be analyzed in light of actual constitutional principles once it is challenged.
It's interesting to me that if progressive judges vote to expand or maintain people's rights, they're activists. If they're reactionaries and vote to restrict or remove people's already protected rights, they're just interpreting the Constitution.
There is way more judicial activism on the part of these reactionaries than there is by progressives. This especially true when progressive judges are interpreting the language of the Constitution to expand rights to more classes who were barred, not shrink them.
Susan, thanks for sharing this. Thorough and thought provoking for sure. I still have to chew over that proposal some more but there is a lot to like in it, and if nothing else, it's a sound springboard to an eventual solution.
The problem I find for our case is not so much the politically ideological differences in legal interpretation. It's the introduction of an individual's personal religious interpretation or indoctrination to our bench. In many of the examples cited, whether the island nation's or European courts, the differences were generally ideological or concerned empowerment of nationalities or ethnicities. None seemed to contain the wrinkle that our own nation seems to have alone: a distinctly papal influence in interpreting our Constitution.
I like the nonpartisan board of selectors idea as a means to possibly counter that, with further assurances in confirmation swearing in that the interpretation of the law will deal with secular law only, and not invoke religion of any type in legal rulings. Our country was founded with separation of church and state for a reason, and this should and must be maintained. It's meant to be a democratic republic, not a theocracy and I say that as someone trying, and mostly failing, to live as a person of faith.
It's that influence on the Court that worries me most, even though half my family was Catholic. But one must remember that Dobbs allowed states to pass abortion laws, but not to pass UNCONSTITUTIONAL abortion laws. The "life begins at conception" idea is a particular belief of a particular part of Christianity. Laws that incorporate it into their structure are denying the rights of those who don't share their beliefs. Other interpretations include "first breath" (a lot of Jews) and Viability (a lot of other Christians, not to mention the non-religious or other religions.)
There are a bunch of cases right now challenging that idea of a law based on a particular religious perspective. And I fear that if and when those wend their way upward, we will get some mendacious reasoning that says "that's Just Fine."
Exactly this. I'm not Catholic but even if I was, or if the justices ruled in a restrictive way that happened to align with my own beliefs, someone injecting religion into interpreting secular laws isn't right. If I choose to live a certain way or follow a particular doctrine, I should be free to follow that, so long as I don't restrict anyone else or harm anyone else in doing so. If others choose not to live according to those same precepts, that is also their right and they shouldn't be forced to do so by our judiciary. It is unacceptable, even if their rulings by some miracle also fit my own personal worldview.
I've felt for a long time now that if your way of life appeals to others, they will choose it for themselves, especially if it's as good as you may believe it is. It's not up to us to coerce others to choose to live in ways we deem proper or worthy. We should only hold ourselves to the standards we accept for ourselves and obey the land's laws, while leaving others to do the same for themselves.
Freedom means just that: to do as you wish, so long as you're not harming or infringing on someone else's ability to do the same. My $.02, losing value all the time with inflation.
Thanks Susan. I did see that and replied. You might see the reply in your activity folder on your own Substack profile. Appreciate your comment and you taking the time to read that piece.
ah. I took a nap and missed it. That's the way the world everywhere, not just Substack, seems to work now--take a day off and it takes two days to catch up on the stuff that hit the fan while you were away from the computer.
"An incest exception requires a similar report within 140 days." WTF??? A kid who has been routinely abused by a relative is supposed to report it to the cops or a doctor? Even if they are brave enough to tell their parents (or parent if the other is doing the abusing) and even if the parent(s) then deny it could be happening? Uncle Harvey has been abusing a kid every single week for umpty years and the kid is supposed to report it EVERY SINGLE TIME on the off chance that THIS time a pregnancy will result?
"By 2021, however, the composition of the Iowa Supreme Court had changed" typifies one problem with our judicial system. Almost no one votes in judicial elections; even if the turnout is good for the election in general, many folks just skip the judges because they have no clue who these people are. Only those who really care bother--and those tend to be conservative because the conservatives, way more than the average person, even liberal, know the advantages of voting for judges who oppose the overall popular opinion on critical issues.
With the election of judges who want to push an agenda opposed to the overall preferences of the voters, the whole idea of "checks and balances" goes out the window. Instead of impartially looking at the law the courts can resort to dishonest doctrines or even dishonest reasoning. The Extremes (though of course not voted into office except indirectly) illustrate this with ideas like "originalism" or decisions like the Bremerton Coach case (which misrepresented the actual facts of the case) or Dobbs (which relied heavily on a Christian interpretation of human life to jettison constitutional protections) or the trend to ignore standing when the issue suits the agenda. I don't follow the details of state court decisions intensively--who has time--but I strongly suspect that the same dishonesty happens there when judges who oppose the popular will . Sometimes the popular will of an area may itself be unconstitutional--witness Jim Crow--but courts should at least be honest in being a check and balance to such preferences.
Now more than ever, with gerrymandering rampant, there needs to be a body that looks impartially at what the legislature, thus distorted, does. Thank god for the recusal in Iowa's latest decisions, but it very much looks like any new law will not be analyzed in light of actual constitutional principles once it is challenged.
It's interesting to me that if progressive judges vote to expand or maintain people's rights, they're activists. If they're reactionaries and vote to restrict or remove people's already protected rights, they're just interpreting the Constitution.
There is way more judicial activism on the part of these reactionaries than there is by progressives. This especially true when progressive judges are interpreting the language of the Constitution to expand rights to more classes who were barred, not shrink them.
Check out the following substack--it gives interesting figures about public opinion and Brown v the Board
https://substack.com/inbox/post/133629070
Susan, thanks for sharing this. Thorough and thought provoking for sure. I still have to chew over that proposal some more but there is a lot to like in it, and if nothing else, it's a sound springboard to an eventual solution.
The problem I find for our case is not so much the politically ideological differences in legal interpretation. It's the introduction of an individual's personal religious interpretation or indoctrination to our bench. In many of the examples cited, whether the island nation's or European courts, the differences were generally ideological or concerned empowerment of nationalities or ethnicities. None seemed to contain the wrinkle that our own nation seems to have alone: a distinctly papal influence in interpreting our Constitution.
I like the nonpartisan board of selectors idea as a means to possibly counter that, with further assurances in confirmation swearing in that the interpretation of the law will deal with secular law only, and not invoke religion of any type in legal rulings. Our country was founded with separation of church and state for a reason, and this should and must be maintained. It's meant to be a democratic republic, not a theocracy and I say that as someone trying, and mostly failing, to live as a person of faith.
It's that influence on the Court that worries me most, even though half my family was Catholic. But one must remember that Dobbs allowed states to pass abortion laws, but not to pass UNCONSTITUTIONAL abortion laws. The "life begins at conception" idea is a particular belief of a particular part of Christianity. Laws that incorporate it into their structure are denying the rights of those who don't share their beliefs. Other interpretations include "first breath" (a lot of Jews) and Viability (a lot of other Christians, not to mention the non-religious or other religions.)
There are a bunch of cases right now challenging that idea of a law based on a particular religious perspective. And I fear that if and when those wend their way upward, we will get some mendacious reasoning that says "that's Just Fine."
Exactly this. I'm not Catholic but even if I was, or if the justices ruled in a restrictive way that happened to align with my own beliefs, someone injecting religion into interpreting secular laws isn't right. If I choose to live a certain way or follow a particular doctrine, I should be free to follow that, so long as I don't restrict anyone else or harm anyone else in doing so. If others choose not to live according to those same precepts, that is also their right and they shouldn't be forced to do so by our judiciary. It is unacceptable, even if their rulings by some miracle also fit my own personal worldview.
I've felt for a long time now that if your way of life appeals to others, they will choose it for themselves, especially if it's as good as you may believe it is. It's not up to us to coerce others to choose to live in ways we deem proper or worthy. We should only hold ourselves to the standards we accept for ourselves and obey the land's laws, while leaving others to do the same for themselves.
Freedom means just that: to do as you wish, so long as you're not harming or infringing on someone else's ability to do the same. My $.02, losing value all the time with inflation.
yup. See my comment on your own substack, the recent post about lies.
Thanks Susan. I did see that and replied. You might see the reply in your activity folder on your own Substack profile. Appreciate your comment and you taking the time to read that piece.
ah. I took a nap and missed it. That's the way the world everywhere, not just Substack, seems to work now--take a day off and it takes two days to catch up on the stuff that hit the fan while you were away from the computer.