Iowans Fighting Back Against “Rigged System”
February 17, 2011
The courageous decision of Iowa voters to dump three activist state supreme court justices last November continues to reverberate. The Gavel Grabbers over at Justice at Stake report that Iowa Chief Justice Mark Cady is pushing a “campaign not to campaign” for state judges because “campaigning” in front of voters “threatens one of our core values, which is independence.”
But Chief Justice Cady isn’t talking about “independence” as our Founders and constitutional authors understood it – meaning independence from the other co-equal branches of government. What Chief Justice Cady wants (along with so many other legal elites) is something far more radical – a judiciary that is completely independent from and unaccountable to the people they serve. That’s not judicial independence, it’s judicial supremacy.
Meanwhile Bob Vander Plaats, who helped engineer the defeat of the three Iowa justices, points out that the state’s “merit” commission is currently comprised of 12 Democrats, one Republican and one independent – which he aptly describes as a “rigged system.”
So let me get this straight: Handing judicial selection over to a tiny commission dominated by one political and completely unaccountable legal special interest guarantees judicial “independence.” But having judges go before the people to explain what judicial philosophy guides their decision-making somehow represents a threat to democracy?
Lifting the Rock on the “Merit” Selection Campaign
January 25, 2011
“Merit” selection proponents like to pretend that the entire “merit” selection campaign just bubbled up from the grass roots over citizen concern about judicial independence – a line the gullible press typically laps up. Gary Marx demolishes that farce in a two-part post on NRO’s Bench Memos.
As Marx demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt, “merit” selection is not some organic, grassroots uprising, but a vehicle for placing trial bar-connected, left-leaning judges on state courts. In Iowa, Marx points out that three of the state Supreme Court’s current members are former members of the Iowa Trial Lawyers Association, while a fourth justice tied to the trial lawyer lobby was thrown out by voters in November.
Voters are starting to figure out the game. That’s why, as Marx points out, states such as Iowa, Tennessee, Kansas, Oklahoma and even Missouri (“merit” selection’s birthplace) are debating whether to amend “merit” selection to reduce the influence of special interest groups or scrap it altogether.
More Backlash Against Lawyer-Picked Judges in Iowa
December 10, 2010
Iowa voters have filed a court challenge to the state’s judicial nominating system, arguing it gives too much power to special interests and denies voters an equal voice in selecting justices for the state Supreme Court. According to attorney James Bopp at the James Madison Center, the current system “guarantees lawyers a far greater say than ordinary citizens in Iowa in selecting judges who have great power and control over the lives of regular citizens.” Bopp, who worked as a legal advisor to Citizens United, is lead counsel for the voters.
Mitch Daniels, “Merit Selection,” and 2012
December 6, 2010
The Iowa Independent has an interesting piece speculating about whether Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels’ support for “merit” selection could become an issue if he decides to run for president. Several pro-family groups have called on Daniels to push for changes in Indiana’s judicial selection system, given “merit” selection’s penchant for producing activist, left-leaning judges. This is an issue that Bench Memos has written about and been following for the last few months, led by Gary Marx.
Could be an interesting debate in 2012 – stay tuned.
“Merit” Selection Proponent Calls for Reining in Special Interest Influence in Iowa Judicial Selection
December 3, 2010
“Intellectual snobs”…“elitists” who are “out of touch with the average people in the state” and don’t understand our government. That’s what a supporter of Iowa’s “merit” selection system says of the Iowa Bar Association, which currently appoints half the members of the judicial star chamber charged with picking Supreme Court justices.
The supporter, a Des Moines attorney and longtime advisor to incoming Governor Terry Branstad, is calling for reforming the system to reduce the influence of special interest groups like the state bar, according to a report in the Iowa Independent. More and more it looks like Iowa’s historic election – in which voters dumped three activist justices – has shaken the foundations of the entire $45 million, George Soros-bankrolled campaign to reshape the judiciary.
Citizens Rise Up Against Activist Judges
December 1, 2010
Hoover Institution scholar Thomas Sowell cuts through the clutter over the recent defeat of three activist Iowa judges (courtesy of the Detroit News). Sowell demolishes the argument purveyed by the “merit” selection crowd that, in the exercise of their constitutional right to vote judges out of office, Iowa citizens somehow represent a threat to judicial independence:
“Being a judge does not mean being given arbitrary powers to enact the liberal agenda from the bench, which means depriving the citizens of their most basic rights that define a free and self-governing people.”
As Sowell points out:
“These judges had taken it upon themselves to rule that the voters of Iowa did not have the right to block attempts to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. Here again, the particular issue – so-called ‘gay marriage’ – was not as fundamental as the question of depriving the voting public of their right to decide what kinds of laws they want to live under.”
Through all their caterwauling this election season, the “merit” selection crowd revealed to all that their main goal isn’t judicial independence, but Judicial Imperialism – where elites pick judges and ordinary people have no control over the direction of our courts. As for the voters – well, if Justice O’Connor and the $45 million George Soros-bankrolled network have their way, we’re just supposed to shut up and take it.
Act Like Politicians, Get Treated Like Politicians
November 9, 2010
Thomas Sowell pens an excellent column today: “Stopping Judicial Imperialism.” Sowell responds to the events in Iowa last week where three state Supreme Court judges were tossed off the bench by the citizens of Iowa. Iowans’ actions have the mainstream media and elites across the nation tut-tutting and wringing their hands.
Sowell makes a clear, forceful point: “If [judges] are going to act like politicians, then they should be voted out like politicians.”
Sowell writes:
“Those who believe in gay marriage are free to vote for it. But, when they lose that vote, it is not the role of judges to nullify the vote and legislate from the bench. Judges who become politicians in robes often lie like politicians as well, claiming that they are just applying the Constitution, when they are in fact exercising powers that the Constitution never gave them….Being a judge does not mean being given arbitrary powers to enact the liberal agenda from the bench, which means depriving the citizens of their most basic rights that define a free and self-governing people.”
Total Recall
November 8, 2010
Great Wall Street Journal editorial over the weekend on the decision by Iowa voters to recall three Supreme Court justices and the tendency of lawyer-dominated “merit” selection panels to promote activist judges. Money graph:
“Far from a beacon of independence, the three Iowa justices were fired because they put their own political preferences above their commitment to the law. If judges want to avoid recalls, they should leave social legislation to legislators.”
Investor’s Business Daily also weighed in with a strong viewpoint on the Iowa recall vote. “Even those who legislate from the bench would be wise not to ignore we the people,” the IBD editorial said.
“We’ve often complained about the power of unelected judges who, when not circumventing the U.S. Constitution and those of their respective states, are busy inventing new rights that often conflict with the will of the people, even after voters or their elected representatives have voted the opposite way.”
“Few voters are even aware that they are allowed to throw these rascals out too. We suspect and hope that will change, considering the power judges have over our lives and our society. In Iowa, at least, voters have looked at the imperial judiciary and recognized these three emperors had no clothes.”
Americans Want Judges to be Accountable
November 5, 2010
A USA Today editorial suggests Iowa voters sent a “chilling message” by voting not to retain three Supreme Court justices on Tuesday. Actually, the only message Iowans sent was that judges should be accountable for their conduct in office, just like every other public servant.
The Supreme Court itself ignited the controversy in Iowa when it overturned the traditional marriage statute adopted by the elected legislature. Rather than deciding that questions of social policy are properly determined by the people through their elected representatives, the Iowa Supreme Court waded in and imposed its own ideological view on the state. Regardless of your personal views of gay marriage, the question of whether judges exceed their authority by making policy is a legitimate issue for voters to take into account in a retention election.
What USA Today and other critics of the people of Iowa seem to want is not a judiciary that is independent, but a judiciary that is imperial – above any form of criticism and beyond any accountability to the people. Iowa voters rightly rejected that theory on Tuesday.
Elections a Big Victory for Judicial Accountability
November 3, 2010
In addition to sending shock waves through Washington, voters on Tuesday sent another clear and unambiguous message: We want judges to be accountable to the people they serve.
In Nevada, voters crushed a ballot proposal that would have stripped them of their democratic right to vote for judges and transferred power to a tiny cabal of legal elites. With two-thirds of precincts reporting, according to a Las Vegas Sun report Question 1 was getting hammered 58% to 42%. Apparently, Sandra Day O’Connor’s incessant lobbying and 1:00 am robocalls backfired disastrously.
In Iowa, in a push-back against judicial arrogance, voters dumped three sitting Supreme Court justices who were up for retention – the first time in history that any justice lost a retention election. Voter outrage erupted when an activist court overstepped its authority by overturning the legislature’s ban on gay marriage and forcing the state to grant marriage licenses to gay couples.
In Michigan, conservatives regained control of the Supreme Court, with Robert Young and Mary Beth Kelly defeating trial lawyer-backed opponents. Rule of law justices will once again be a majority on Michigan’s high court.
(For additional state court election results, I recommend Ed Whelan/Gary Marx’s updates over at Bench Memos and the Legal Newsline’s rundown.)
As a recent report by the American Justice Partnership (which I run) reveals, the uber-liberal Open Society Institute has spent over $45 million in the last decade in an attempt to fundamentally alter America’s judiciary. Every so-called “reform” the Soros-bankrolled network and its leader, Justice at Stake, support, including “merit” selection, is aimed at reducing the power and input of ordinary citizens when it comes to deciding who will serve us on the bench. On Tuesday, voters loudly proclaimed that even George Soros’ millions can’t buy our courts.