 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
Click here
|
The Judicial Arrogance of Judge Robert Hanson 10/11/2007 Lack of judicial restraint circumvents the will of the people in Iowa’s marriage case. In Varnum v. Brien, the latest Iowa marriage case, Fifth Judicial District of Iowa Judge Robert B. Hanson declares the law restricting marriage to the union between a man and a woman to be in violation of Iowa's Constitution. This decision is yet another example of judicial activism and the arrogance of our judiciary in failing to adhere to the written text of the law.
The incredible thing about the Varnum case is that the matter came before the Court on competing motions for summary judgment. That means that there was no trial, and the court made its decision without the benefit of a single stitch of testimony. As the Court correctly pointed out before it proceeded to ignore its own procedures:
Therefore, in granting the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, Judge Hanson has concluded that there was "no genuine issue of material fact," that "no reasonable minds can differ on how the issue should be resolved" and that no "reasonable jury" could return a verdict in support of marriage - all this while viewing the facts "in the light most favorable" to those who support the marriage law.
It's an incredible leap, but he jumps anyway. Here are some of the pronouncements Judge Hanson makes in his decision, again without letting each side present the evidence at trial:
Again, all this while viewing the facts "in the light most favorable" to those who support marriage.
There is no question that Judge Hanson has a personal agenda to promote. This is evident when reading his three-page-rant on the "History of Anti-Gay Discrimination."11 He goes to great lengths to paint laws that are currently on the books with the broad brush of "discrimination," despite the fact that they have no relation to the case at hand.
Unbelievable! Is this the role of a judge?
Some might say that the judge just has another interpretation of the law and this is just a mistake, but do not be deceived. Judge Hanson knows exactly what he is doing, and arrogantly reveals his motives:
As Judge Hanson's logic goes, since the Iowa legislature has not done its job, he will do it for them. But if this is what Judge Hanson feels called to do, he should become a legislator. As a judge, he is required to interpret the law, not write laws to try to do what the legislature has deliberately chosen not to do.
However, the problems Iowans - and the rest of the country - face are much bigger than Judge Hanson and this one ruling. The problem is that there are other judges who share his skewed view of their role as judges. They believe that it is their duty to dictate what is best for the citizenry, no matter what the citizens say at the polls and through their elected officials.
That is why "we the people" need to engage ourselves in the process of selecting judges. We need judges who will respect the text of the laws and stop imposing their personal beliefs on the rest of us. We need judges who deal with what the law actually says and not with what they think the law should say.
Iowa judges stand for retention every six years, which means that a simple majority vote can determine whether a judge stays on the bench or steps down. Judge Hanson will come up for retention in 2010. Iowans must therefore be diligent and remember this decision when the time comes. Our freedoms as a state and a country are at stake.
|
|
Concerned Women for America 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 488-7000 Fax: (202) 488-0806 |
Feedback / Questions? || Problem with this page? || Archives
