Join Amazon Prime for exclusive deals, fast shipping, and endless entertainment! Sign up now!
We have a significant problem in our judiciary, and the dissenting opinion in this case proves it.
At question was if a pro-abortion ballot measure would be added to the ballot in the upcoming election.
The Arkansas Supreme Court says no, but it is the dissenting opinion I really want to look at here.
It’s the Rule
The case centered around adding more exceptions to abortion laws in the state of Arkansas.
However, the people that gathered the information for the petition to have the ballot measure added did not submit their paperwork properly.
All the data gathered by paid signature collectors is supposed to be submitted in a single bundle, but it was not.
Justice Rhonda Wood gave the majority opinion, stating, “We find that the Secretary correctly refused to count the signatures collected by paid canvassers because the sponsor failed to file the paid canvasser training certification.”
It’s the rule, plain and simple… had they followed the rules, the ballot measure would have been included.
Justice Karen Baker’s dissent stated, “Why are the respondent and the majority determined to keep this particular vote from the people?
“The majority has succeeded in its efforts to change the law in order to deprive the voters of the opportunity to vote on this issue, which is not the proper role of this court.”
It was denied because they did not follow the rules, so this justice is basically saying that if she supports the measure, the rules no longer matter.
That’s why you can predict virtually every political case based on the ideology of the judge on the bench.
We no longer dispense justice when it comes to constitutional or politically ideological cases.
So, like I said, we have activists on the bench, not judges.
