Welcome to Unalienable Rights Foundation!

· Home
· AvantGo
· Content
· Downloads
· Members_List
· Stories_Archive
· Surveys
· Top
· Topics
· Web_Links

     What Are/Is

The Unalienable Rights Foundation

Inalienable Rights

Dillon Rule

Citizens Guide - Impeachment

     Random Headlines

UnAlienable Rights
[ UnAlienable Rights ]

·UVA under Investigation by U.S. Dept. of Education's OCR
· commitment to a government of laws
·Washington On Religion - Original Intent
·'If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested' 4th Amd
·Bill of Rights Celebrates its 217th Year
·Can Law Schools Have Part of the Federal Pie Without Obligations


What is a UARF Fellow 

     CNN LAW
·Court upholds limits on Navy sonar training
·Slain wife accuses husband from the grave
·Prosecutors drop parent-killing case
·Priest accused of lying in mob investigation
·Inmate shot dead after brazen escape
·Juror: Judge and jury pressured me to convict
·Man convicted for Internet hoax death
·Zoloft killer's 30-year sentence appealed
·Girl who shielded mom is a hero at school
·Holloway disappearance hits cold case file


     Instructions For Replying to Our FOIA


Instructions for Responding to
Our FOIA Request to You Click Below

 Politics on the Bench — a Judge's View of Partisanship at Play

Public  Watch  Dog

Politics on the Bench — a Judge's View of Partisanship at Play

Dianne McGarey, of Ankeny, Iowa, holds a sign during a rally by gay marriage opponents

Jianne McGarey, of Ankeny, Iowa, holds a sign during a rally by gay marriage opponents

Photo: AP / Charlie Neibergall

As more state courts across the United States render difficult decisions about same-sex marriage, the political firestorm that engulfed the Iowa Supreme Court three years ago over its marriage ruling is receding in public memory.

The Iowa episode has currency today, however, especially given soaring special-interest spending in judicial elections that threatens to turn judges into politicians-in-robes. My experience at the center of the Iowa storm, meanwhile, has only strengthened my own belief in the importance of keeping politics out of the courtroom.

In 2010, Iowa voters removed two colleagues and me from the court in a retention (yes-or-no) election. Well-funded out-of-state groups and other critics fueled the ouster drive, decrying a unanimous 2009 court ruling. That decision held an Iowa statute denying civil marriage — and the benefits flowing from that status — to same-sex couples violated their right to equal protection under the Iowa Constitution. Following the ruling, the members of the court were attacked as activist judges and members of a ruling class.

Public debate about the merits of court decisions is a healthy aspect of a democratic society, yet the unprecedented Iowa ouster campaign delivered a message of intimidation and retaliation. That message is utterly inconsistent with the concept of a judiciary charged with the responsibility to uphold the constitutional rights of all citizens, not just the constitutional rights of the majority.

Unfortunately, this effort to politicize impartial courts is not receding. A report just released by two nonpartisan groups, Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, finds that in the 2011-2012 judicial election cycle nationwide, TV advertising rose to a record $33.7 million, and special-interest groups and political parties spent a record $24.7 million toward this advertising and other election materials.


As a result, a crisis of public confidence in the courts is brewing. Eighty-seven percent of voters believe judicial campaign spending and independent expenditures influence courtroom outcomes, according to a poll by the report's authors.

What these disturbing facts do not reflect is how politicization influences the way our courts make decisions. On this issue, I'd like to give an inside view.

Courts of last resort approach decision-making in two strikingly different ways, I've concluded from my experience and from talking to judges in other states. This difference separates impartial courts that deliberate collectively, and politicized courts that approach decisions along philosophical or ideological lines.

When judges holding diverse perspectives pursue a collegial approach to decision-making, we effectively hold each other accountable to the rule of law. A collective wisdom is brought to bear when judges listen to, and find value in, their colleagues' different perspectives.

This collective approach delivers far better decision-making than that of courts politicized through judicial elections. Politicized courts become mini-legislatures composed of judges with preordained views who believe their opinions must be represented. When judges are chosen because they represent a philosophy or ideology, a collegial effort is no longer possible. Whoever has a majority carries the day. In this setting, how can the rule of law be applied impartially if the law shifts back and forth, depending upon the presence of a Democratic or a Republican majority? And how, then, shall the public keep its confidence in the integrity of courts?

Today, I still believe the best judicial decisions are made when judges are insulated from politics. And despite my experience in 2010, I continue to believe that judicial merit selection systems like Iowa's, incorporating a nonpartisan screening commission and gubernatorial appointment, offer the best defense against politicized courts.

buy medicines online pharmacy brand viagra online

     Related Links
· More about Public Watch Dog
· News by editor

Most read story about Public Watch Dog:
State election board votes for AG investigation into voter registration dumping

     Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Very Good


 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

 Send to a Friend Send to a Friend

Associated Topics

Civil  RightsExamine and Cross ExamineGeneral Counsel and Senior Law FellowsManual of the ConstitutionPublic  Watch  DogUnAlienable Rights

Web site powered by Web Hosting USA

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © MM - MMXIII by the UnAlienable Rights Foundatation.

WWW http://www.uarf.us

You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php or ultramode.txt
Copyright, MMVIII, Unalienabe Rights Foundation (UARF), All Rigths Reserved
Page Generation: 0.68 Seconds