I posted a link to a video produced by stop8.org on my Facebook page yesterday. It is a clever refutation of an ad produced by Bob Vander Plaats’ group Iowans for Freedom. I put it on my page because the stop8 piece is a good example of an effective viral video and, I admit, I happen to agree with the content. (Here is a link to the video Matt Baume of stop8.org) However, I posted the link with limited editorial comment, “here is a breakdown of the recent ad about judges and marriage in Iowa.” The comments I received on the post came from those who support the effort to change Iowa’s judge selection and retention system, but one commenter touched a nerve in me and I have been stewing about it since.
As background, the Vander Plaats’ effort targets the three Iowa Supreme Court Justices who are on the ballot for retention in November. Something commonly referred to as the “Missouri Plan” brought the selection of judges by election to an end in 1962 when Iowa voters decided to replace the process of selecting judges by popular vote with a merit selection and retention election process. This system was adopted in hopes of taking politics out of the selection and retention of those serving in the third branch of government. The legislative branch passes the laws. The executive enforces them and the third branch, known as the judiciary, ensures the laws are enforced equally and in accordance with Constitution. Vander Plaats and crew disagree with the Supreme Court ruling on marriage, want to boot the judges and are running a political campaign to do so.
I referred to the process in response to a question asked in the thread of posts and used the terms used by the law “merit retention and selection.” In response, an attorney posted this:
“You are confused re the judgeship issue, Graham as you have no idea how it is done except from bloggers. The “merit” system is big firms/big business. No common people whatsoever. At least Governors appointments reflect the will of people that elected him/her. Not corporate big law firm appointments. Read Pelican brief. The Associate….What’s worse is present Culver appointments which reek of politics but “look like” merit. Senator’s husband? West Des Moines Trial lawyer. If you want to be a blogger, then blog. What it is called is not what it is.”
For the record, I happen to blog as a sideline. I can hardly be defined by what I write in this spot, I hope. I am, like most voters, a citizen capable of understanding how our government works. Further, had my friend bothered to take the time to look, he would have found out I once served as the deputy appointments director for the Governor of Florida. I have been intimately involved in the selection of judges to state courts, but a person does not need that experience to evaluate Iowa’s system of judicial selection, nor does he need to read John Grisham novels to become knowledgeable about the problems found there as my friend ridiculously suggests.
My friend makes a contradictory case for scrapping Iowa’s judicial selection process. He supports the gubernatorial appointment of judges, because, he says, a governor is elected at the will of the people. He then oddly claims that Governor Culver’s abuse of the judicial appointment system demonstrates why the merit system should be scrapped. Maybe I need to be pointed to another novel to help me understand, but saying we should give the Governor full independent authority to appoint judges without input from a separate commission of citizens because the current Governor made bad appointments from the list submitted by the commission doesn’t make sense.
I have been stewing about the condescending tone my friend took because I feel it reflects the state of political discourse in this country. I am a blogger, but I am a voter, father, businessman, community volunteer and many other things. Many will likely find my opinions wrong and my thought process flawed, quite possibly for good reason. But, when we dismiss each other out of hand without taking the time to hear what others think and, sometimes, how they came to their conclusions, we shortchange ourselves. My friend did this.
It is the exchange of ideas that will help us become a better state and country. Too many engaged in the current political debate do so with a belief it is “us against them.” They find it too easy to dismiss the other point of view as uninformed or anti-American/Iowan/family/fill-in-the-blank. Not until more of us realize it is just about us and there is no them will we be able to set about solving the monumental problems we face as Americans.
(Contact Graham Gillette at grahamgillette@gmail.com)
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.
No comments:
Post a Comment