Should majority rule?

Chad Knight

On Tuesday, Iowans voted not to retain three of the state’s Supreme Court justices. As I have heard, the motivation was to “send a message,” with the message being that Iowa won’t stand for judges who disagree with the majority.

That is not a very American message. Our government, both Iowa’s and the United States’, was constructed so the judicial branch would be above politics and bipartisanship. Judges are not representatives of the majority, and that’s why they have traditionally been able to uphold justice and protect the liberties of all citizens.

Our justices had done just that. They made an unpopular decision that granted civil rights to a minority. And for this, we have removed them, showing that the majority of Iowans do not respect the judicial branch and by extension the democratic government to which it belongs.

History has shown that America needs non-partisan justices to protect our minorities. Iowa has shown that we will degrade both the judicial and democratic systems in opposition to that protection.

This election result may be a response to what some call “legislating from the bench,” but when we the people try to control the Supreme Court, we are “judging from the polls,” which is a violation of the judicial branch and insult to the entire three-branch democratic government.

So, we wanted to send a message? Message received: The majority of Iowa will do whatever it can to prevent the minority from gaining rights, justice(s) be damned.