In our most recent post regarding the retention of Judge David Wiggins to the Iowa Supreme Court we hoped to make it clear that Judge Wiggins by his ruling in the Varnum decision, which imposed legal recognition of homosexual marriage on Iowans, exposed himself as a clear and present danger to constitutional government. Any judge who issues a ruling disregarding any reasonable understanding of original intent of the people and the legislature is nothing more than a robed tyrant or incompetent fool.
But while Judge Wiggins is an obvious clunker, he is not the only judge up for retention. As a politically active conservative I am often asked for my thoughts on the other judges this election. I do not know any of their records or philosophies. Some may be registered Republicans but given the personnel on the Iowa Supreme Court that is far from comforting. Maggie Tinsman is a registered Republican but I would not wish the Iowa Constitution in the hands of someone like her any more than a card carrying Democrat.
The nomination and initial selection process for these judges, the so called Missouri plan of appointment and retention, does not eliminate cronyism. Most of these are “politically” connected one way or another, through their sponsors or the activists in the legal bar. The breathless admonition “don’t politicize the process” does not hold water. Insiders know something of their judicial philosophy so why shouldn’t we? But regardless of how they got in the position they are in, we do not owe any of them a sinecure, particularly when so little is known about them.
This is about “philosophizing” the process, not politicizing it as if it were not already. The politically connected can still get the appointments, but now the people should impose themselves on the process to assure themselves that at least the standards for the politically connected relate to the constitution, that judges are not indifferent to the constitution at any level, or subsumed by the desires of their patrons whoever they are, including the local legal society.
That few “know” the judges is much more their fault than the fault of citizens. Indeed I interpret their lack of interest in soliciting our retention vote as disrespectful, presumptive and manipulative. There is no judicial cannon or rule of conduct to prevent them from soliciting our vote, to hold a few town meetings to explain their judicial philosophy.
So I am voting that each of those on the ballot be laid off, which is to oppose their retention at this time. Call it a reset, a time-out, liberals would no doubt prefer such terms.
We issued them no permanent contract, we owe no one a permanent job, even if they are competent. That is the world of most every other yeoman working person. It is our right as citizens to decide to start over, to reevaluate the whole lot for their temperament, to assure ourselves through the only reevaluation process available to us that we have not hired on the same sort of jerks as produced the Varnum marriage decision.
Only a percentage are up for retention so voting against retention is no more than forcing a reevaluation of a group at a time. Besides I am a fan of term limits so I do not like the “traditional” free ride these guys usually get.
If any of them had publicly said “vote to retain me because . . . ” while maintaining that their judicial philosophy is tied to original intent and deference to legislative prerogatives under the constitution, then I would vote to retain them if there was no compelling reason to distrust them. But as far as I know none of them have shown a serious interest in pledging such even as it is well established that they have the perfect right to advertise their philosophy and appeal to voters for retention.
If they are only interested in hiding behind peoples ignorance or indifference, their own obfuscations, the barriers they build to transparency, in order to retain their jobs, then out they go by my vote.
Every worker is subject to the demands of the market . . . and the market is us . . . “shoppers” for the best most authentic product available. In most layoffs even good workers are subject to the same layoff as everyone else, particularly if the boss does not know of any reason to keep them. But as regards judicial retention, it is not a case of the worker being totally innocent, just caught up in the vagaries of the market. Judges can’t plead victimhood. They are a professional staff with control over their destiny. They cannot plead ignorance.
They have failed or refused to display their credentials, their bonafides for being retained. They have disrespected the market . . . thought themselves above it. They have made the mistake of blowing off the job interview. Nevertheless many may be salvageable. Frankly there is nothing to stop them from trying to get reappointed, rehired or recalled from layoff so to speak, under the so called “Missouri plan.” The good ones should be rehired, whatever their political connection. But they need to be honestly reevaluated some how. Forcing that issue is something available to us by voting no. That is consistent with the Missouri plan. R Mall
