“What happens when judicial arrogance becomes so habitual as to become second nature?”

This is the question Matthew Franck poses in his article “Law Feelings, and Religion at the Bar in Iowa ” in discussing the Iowa Supreme Court's recent decision to impose same-sex marriage on the state.

He discusses all the reasons this is judicial tyranny, including the incredulity “at the court's rejection of any argument for the natural family as the best setting for child-rearing as a mere ‘stereotype' (and this in a dismissive footnote, no less).

He complains about Justice Mark Cady, who wrote the court's opinion: “And so when he follows the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling (overturning a state law criminalizing sodomy), claiming that "the standards of each generation" are the touchstone for understanding what the Constitution says about equality, we know perfectly well that Cady does not mean that democratic majorities will be consulted for discerning what those standards are. No, "a new understanding of equal protection is achieved" whenever the judges say a new thing on the subject. Adorning the opinion with the standard insincere pledge of a "keen and respectful understanding" of separation of powers that is employed by all judicial activists, Cady all but admits that the Iowa supreme court has just amended the state constitution. This is easily done illegitimately by the judiciary, but is a very hard thing for Iowans themselves to do legitimately through the prescribed amendment process. Cady knows this too, remarking that the people can "shape it over time," while silently passing over the fact that the judiciary can do it in a few minutes on a Friday morning.”

Read the article here: