For me, this Iowa Supreme Court ruling exposes the failure of originalism. I'm very interested in history, and it can be fascinating to read about the original understanding of certain ideas. But our rights should not be constrained or defined by what a group of white men believed in the 1850s. As Chief Justice Christensen wrote in dissent, "Originalism has limits. It cannot account for a technology that didn’t exist in 1857—when the Iowa Constitution was ratified—and a type of case that would not have been brought in 1857."
Laurie, thanks for adding that. I agree. The court has the opportunity to clarify its ruling. To further quote the chief justice:
"Yet another problem with the majority opinion is its failure even to decide the case before it. The majority says that one-way video is constitutionally defective in all circumstances but doesn’t say whether the child witnesses must testify in the physical presence of the defendant or whether two-way video would be sufficient. The defendant has argued that physical presence is the constitutional minimum, so the issue is clearly raised and before us in this case. The majority, however, doesn’t decide the issue; instead, it leaves the district court guessing on remand. This means that we will have perhaps a third trial unless the district court reads the majority’s future intentions correctly. I think the majority owes everyone a full decision in this case and not an inconclusive remand that fails to decide part of the appeal. "
And thank you, Lynn, for the shout out! Next week is Children's Mental Health Awareness week and your stories here really hit me. The re-traumatization and PTSD...
The other interesting thing about this opinion, from my perspective, is that Justice May has not been sympathetic to the rights of criminal defendants in many other cases. I wrote about this last year (it's a long post but you can skip to the section on criminal cases):
For me, this Iowa Supreme Court ruling exposes the failure of originalism. I'm very interested in history, and it can be fascinating to read about the original understanding of certain ideas. But our rights should not be constrained or defined by what a group of white men believed in the 1850s. As Chief Justice Christensen wrote in dissent, "Originalism has limits. It cannot account for a technology that didn’t exist in 1857—when the Iowa Constitution was ratified—and a type of case that would not have been brought in 1857."
Laurie, thanks for adding that. I agree. The court has the opportunity to clarify its ruling. To further quote the chief justice:
"Yet another problem with the majority opinion is its failure even to decide the case before it. The majority says that one-way video is constitutionally defective in all circumstances but doesn’t say whether the child witnesses must testify in the physical presence of the defendant or whether two-way video would be sufficient. The defendant has argued that physical presence is the constitutional minimum, so the issue is clearly raised and before us in this case. The majority, however, doesn’t decide the issue; instead, it leaves the district court guessing on remand. This means that we will have perhaps a third trial unless the district court reads the majority’s future intentions correctly. I think the majority owes everyone a full decision in this case and not an inconclusive remand that fails to decide part of the appeal. "
And thank you, Lynn, for the shout out! Next week is Children's Mental Health Awareness week and your stories here really hit me. The re-traumatization and PTSD...
The other interesting thing about this opinion, from my perspective, is that Justice May has not been sympathetic to the rights of criminal defendants in many other cases. I wrote about this last year (it's a long post but you can skip to the section on criminal cases):
https://laurabelin.substack.com/p/how-iowa-supreme-court-justice-david
From where I'm sitting, that shows his deep commitment to originalism.