A hole full of malfeasance

A trio of freshmen Republican legislators drafting impeachment measures against the four remaining Iowa Supreme Court justices have the wrong priorities. Kim Pearson announced last month she was drafting the measures joined by Glen Massie and Tom Shaw. New House Speaker Kraig Paulsen has said he won't stand in the way of their effort, although Gov.-elect Terry Branstad says it's the wrong approach. A much better way for the newly elected House members to make a mark would be to offer constructive ideas for plugging a potential $600 million budget hole. Opponents of gay marriage won a huge victory when all three justices up for retention in the Nov. 2 general election were thrown off the bench. That didn't change the court's unanimous 2009 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa. And there's no guarentee that throwing the rest off and getting a whole new slate of justices would lead to overturning the ruling, either. After all, the justices were doing the job they were appointed for. Just because a large group of voters don't agree with how the justices interpreted the Iowa constitution as it relates to one case doesn't mean they were committing malfeasance, the grounds for which they would be impeached. What does seem like malfeasance is pursuing these impeachment charges.

They threw those bums out!

Iowa's voters were angry and lashing out Nov. 2. They saw a problem --- "activist" judges --- and they did what any angry citizen would do, voted their elected officials out of office. Only, Iowa's judges are not elected. That makes it one of the better systems for putting judges on the bench in the country. That is also what made this a bad situation in which to vote "no" on the three Iowa Supreme Court justices' retention. Now Gov.-elect Terry Branstad will pick three replacements from a slate of nine nominees forwarded to him by a 15-member commission. In other words, he has no control over the group of people from which he will choose. Branstad may find three people among those nominees whom he believes meet his criteria for the Supreme Court. However, Chief Justice Marsha Ternus was appointed by Branstad during a prior term and is now leaving the position because of the court's unanimous vote striking down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional, making gay marriage legal in Iowa. Opponents of this decision would do better to pursue an amendment to the state's Constitution. That, of course, will take more time and much more political will. Can opponents muster enough voter anger for a long enough time to make that happen? If not, they can always keep campaigning to vote offending judges out.

Justice-hating freedom fighters?

Bob Vander Plaats is using a little spin to sell the idea behind his organization Iowa For Freedom. He is campaigning against the three Iowa Supreme Court justices who are up for retention because they were part of the unanimous 2009 decision that legalized gay marriage in the state. His outrage  against the justices is fueled by a belief that the courts overstepped their bounds with the ruling. Vander Plaats wants to punish the justices for their role in redefining marriage, which he deems as "judicial activism." Still, he says the campaign is about freedom, not marriage. The opportunity to vote out the justices may essentially be a "check and balance" on the courts, as Vander Plaats suggests. But he seems to ignore the larger system of checks and balances between the legislative, judicial and administrative branches of Iowa's government. An independent judiciary --- free to make interpretations of the state's laws and constitution --- is a vital part of that. He'd like the courts to restrain themselves from all that freedom and just base their rulings on laws the Legislature approves and governor signs. That rubber-stamp approach eliminates their role as a check and balance on the other branches of government. The group really only advocates greater freedom for one person: the governor. They'd like to reform Iowa's system for appointing justices by eliminating the commission that is central to the process. Instead, Iowa For Freedom says the governor alone should make the choice.

Union Supporter (she might start a civil war)

Republican lieutenant governor candidate Kim Reynolds supports the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage. She also wants to give Iowans the opportunity to vote on how marriage is defined after the state's Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. But she would never consider the possibility of legalizing civil unions for homosexual couples, says the Branstad campaign. Except that she would. Last week in Carroll Reynolds said, "We could take a look at civil unions. There are other options maybe that I would be in favor of looking at." (See story at http://bit.ly/demgx0.) Branstad's campaign "clarified" that by contradicting her and then pretending that she was actually talking about extending domestic partnership benefits to employees at private companies. (See story at http://bit.ly/aYb6hK.) All of the pretending is necessary because Branstad is trying to court Christian conservatives who still want to cast a vote for Bob Vander Plaats even though he lost the primary. And why? Because he has proven gay marriage is his top concern: He'd sign an executive order his first day in office overturning the court's decision. (See story at http://bit.ly/d9Ut5Z.) As for Branstad, well, he whines that the governor doesn't have the authority to do that. But he'll push for that constitutional amendment.

The Big Dummy

It's disingenuous for Gov. Chet Culver to say Democrats stood firm on civil rights by not allowing debate on gay marriage and then assert a belief that marriage should only be between one man and one woman. Culver has avoided a lot of distasteful things, though: speaking against any faction (pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage), challenging the court's gay marriage decision, adding discriminatory amendments to the constitution that he claims to personally believe in, and pursuing a more nuanced policy that would protect the civil rights of homosexuals (including acknowledgement of monogamous gay relationships) without giving short-shrift to his (and many other people's) belief about marriage. That last one, if done the right way, would deprive Republicans of an important wedge issue. Those who opposed equal rights for homosexuals after the marriage issue had been stripped away would be shown as driven by hate and prejudice. To read the story containing Culver's comments in the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier follow this link: http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_94f81826-3cfd-11df-a4b1-001cc4c03286.html