Bizarre Iowa Supreme Court Campaign Ad | #1 in Strange Political Ads

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter BobG
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Strange
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on a controversial Iowa Supreme Court campaign ad aimed at unseating justices who supported the legalization of same-sex marriage. Participants express strong opinions about marriage rights, referencing the Fourteenth Amendment and the implications of denying marriage to same-sex couples. The discussion highlights the tension between individual rights and state regulations, with some arguing that prohibiting certain marriages, such as incestuous ones, raises constitutional questions. Overall, the ad is described as bizarre yet effective in its messaging.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution
  • Familiarity with the legal context of same-sex marriage in Iowa
  • Knowledge of campaign strategies and political advertising
  • Awareness of the implications of marriage laws on individual rights
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the historical context of the Fourteenth Amendment and its impact on marriage laws
  • Examine the legal battles surrounding same-sex marriage in Iowa
  • Analyze effective political advertising strategies in controversial campaigns
  • Explore the implications of marriage laws on civil rights and individual freedoms
USEFUL FOR

Political analysts, legal scholars, activists advocating for marriage equality, and anyone interested in the intersection of law and individual rights in the context of political campaigns.

  • #31
Char. Limit said:
I didn't remember Samantha Bee's word for 75%, so I used the one for 2/3 instead.
It's super-extra-duper-majority.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Al68 said:
It's super-extra-duper-majority.

Thanks.
 
  • #33
Al68 said:
It's super-extra-duper-majority.

Lol, but not quite. Our Founding Fathers figured that in, in order to ensure it would be very difficult to overturn what they put into our Constitution.

They weren't perfect, but they were very well-learned, and they had 11 years to nail it. They weren't perfect, but they did a pretty dang good job. Don't believe me? Just look at your average 90% standard of living after 230+ years compared to the rest of the worlds'.

They got it right, or as least as right as they could have at the time. But, they even saw fit to modify as required, and built that into our cornerstone document, too.

And we're still here!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

News Obama planning to nominate a new Justice to US Supreme Court
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
8K
News Surprise from the US Supreme Court on same-sex marriage
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
News U.S. Supreme Court Hears Monsanto Seed Patent Case
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
13K
News How Does Iowa's Supreme Court Decision Impact Same-Sex Marriage Laws?
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
News Who Will Replace Justice Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
David Prowse has Died: Long live Darth Vader
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
News Is John McCain the New President After Supreme Court Recount Order?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
News Souter Confirms Republicans' Worst Fears
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
13K
News Supreme Court nominee: John G. Roberts Jr.
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
7K
US Supreme Court rules on grammar
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K