The Elephant in the Room

Iowa Supreme Court Justice Mark Cady gave the State of the Judiciary speech to the General Assembly yesterday.  Many in the chamber sat on their hands during his address.  When he addressed the Court’s ruling on same sex marriage, the Chief Justice explained how the Court “worked hard to author a written decision to fully explain our reasoning to all Iowans.”  He went on to say, “Courts serve the law, not the demands of special interest groups.  By serving the rule of law, courts protect the civil, political, economic, and social rights of all citizens.”  The silence from half of the hall was chilling, especially when I consider some among them want to impeach Cady for how he carries out his duties.

by Rosie O'Beirne

A few hours later and some 1,400 hundred miles away, President Barack Obama stood in front of a crowd of approximately 13,000 Arizonans and addressed the nation at a ceremony to celebrate the lives of the victims of Saturday’s senseless shooting.  He seized the moment to acknowledge the current caustic rhetoric infesting our political discourse.   He said, “But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.”

Both men refused to ignore the widening political divide fueled by outrageous and, at times, hateful speech.  They looked into our eyes and took the issue head-on.  We should follow their lead, for the time has come to stop tiptoeing around the elephant in the room.  (The elephant is a well-used metaphor for the big issue a group would prefer to ignore. I am not implying an exclusive link between the Republican mascot and the rotting, stinking, festering disease of vitriolic speech in the modern political arena. The metaphorical elephant can take the form of a donkey, a grizzly and any other mascot.)

I was taken by one particular line from the President’s remarks, “We recognize our own mortality, and we are reminded that in the fleeting time we have on this Earth, what matters is not wealth, or status, or power, or fame – but rather, how well we have loved and what small part we have played in making the lives of other people better.”

I posted this line on my Facebook page and within minutes a high school acquaintance posted a single word in response, “seriously??”  I responded I was and asked if she disagreed with the statement.  She informed me the President’s “agenda” made her discount everything he had to say.  The silent chill I felt during Chief Justice Cady’s speech swept down my spine again and left a shroud of disappointment in its wake.  Like all of us, my Facebook friend can disagree with Mr. Obama’s policies and a day will come when she can cast a vote for another vying to replace him.  However, for her to discount in total any and all things the President says or does is more than silly.  It is an example of the sickness of division that invades America.

Chief Justice Cady and his colleagues ruled on a case based on their interpretation of legal precedent, laws and the Constitution.  They executed their duties without any trace of malfeasance or impropriety.  Those who wish to impeach them because they think they should have reached a different conclusion display a complete lack of understanding of the balance of power in a democracy.  Americans and Iowans should not attack those who reach different conclusions.  They should utilize to the fullest the power of free speech to debate and build a consensus to pass laws and amend the Constitution in a manner that meets the judicial test the Chief Justice outlined in his address.  However, free speech comes with responsibility.  Suggesting that the Court overstepped when what is meant is that it ruled differently than one had hoped, and that all of its members be removed from office by a politically motivated elected body is dangerous and destructive to a free society.  Focus on the issue, not a witch-hunt to rid the court of those who see things differently.

The President urged his countrymen to strive to become the country our children imagine we can be.  In a country of 300 million, there is no doubt we will disagree about how to chart such a course.  One thing is sure, it becomes less likely we will ever get there if we refuse to even consider what the President, Supreme Court, or the guy down the street have to say, because they may support a different party, political mindset or philosophy.  The task ahead will take all we have.  If we waste energy bickering and claiming some are not worthy of thoughtful consideration because of our own preconceived notions, it is a given we will never become what our children want us to be.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Bob Vander Plaats Does Not Speak for Iowans

Bob Vander Plaats reminds me of Groundhog Day, the 1993 Bill Murray film.  No matter what we do, every time we turn around there is Vander Plaats asserting he speaks for Iowans and repeating the same thing we heard yesterday.

Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, 1993

Yesterday, Vander Plaats applauded statements that Gov.-elect Terry Branstad made to reporters this week indicating he would look for candidates with “more judicial restraint” in filling the three current Supreme Court vacancies, and for calling it “a tragic mistake” when the court last year struck down as unconstitutional a state law defining marriage in Iowa as only between one man and one woman.

“The people have spoken and demanded a change in leadership,” Vander Plaats said, saying a majority of Iowans have indicated they do not believe the unanimous court acted within their authority in making Iowa “a same-sex marriage state.”

It is mystifying how Bob Vander Plaats, a guy who has been personally rejected by voters in four different elections, can assert he understands what Iowans want, let alone imply he speaks for them.

The people have spoken clearly on four occasions and rejected Bob Vander Plaats.  Hopefully, soon they will find a way to stop his tiresome groundhog like reappearance on the Iowa political landscape.  A judicial retention vote on one judge does not mean other judges should resign, but a quadruple loss at the polls might be a signal that Vander Plaats is not a reliable source when it comes to interpreting what Iowans are thinking.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Newt Gingrich is a Bully

Newt Gingrich is a smart guy and I have liked many things he has said over the years.  However, his willingness to throw democracy and the principles of good government under the wheels of his campaign bus as it swerves hard to the right is appalling.

Gingrich was in Iowa yesterday promoting his latest book and his potential presidential campaign.  Pushing the latest political hot-button, marriage, Gingrich said the integrity and authority of the system comes from the consent of the governed, “then the governed have indicated they don’t agree with this court … so I think they have any sense of integrity about protecting the court, they’ll step down.”

Wait.  What?

CHRISTOPHER GANNON/THE REGISTER

Gingrich’s statement is silly.   No, it is worse.  Gingrich has shown a reckless disregard for justice.  Having three separate and distinct branches of government provides an important balance.  The executive and legislative bodies are selected by regular and competitive elections.  These branches were meant to be responsive to the evolving priorities of the people.  Justice demands members of the Court consider the Constitution and laws of the land with a bit more distance from the influences of popular election.

Retention votes make sense.  The people should have the ability to remove judges they deem unfit for office, but judges should not be influenced to rule based on perceived popular opinion.

Gingrich’s statement is so outrageous it does not deserve comment, until you realize he could actually be a contender for the presidency.  Let’s deconstruct what he said.

First, Gingrich takes a huge leap in logic when he says voters would have tossed all of the Justices out had they been on the ballot.  He does not know that.  Polls indicate many of those voting “no” wanted to send a message.  If all of the justices were on the same ballot, it is fair to assume voters would have considered the potential chaos that could have ensued from the Supreme Court on down had all of the justices been tossed out.  A majority may not have voted “no” on the entire slate.  Balancing court continuity with the need for a public check is precisely why staggered terms for Justices were written into the Constitution.

Next, it is ludicrous to suggest this year’s vote should cause the remaining Justices to step down.  Following this flawed logic, all Republicans in the U.S. Senate who were not on the ballot should have resigned in 2008 to protect the integrity of Congress after the thumping their Party took that year.  Like Senators, Justices have terms that allow voters to consider a public servant’s entire record of service.  Had Gingrich resigned when he took a single vote in Congress that was unpopular, his career would have been considerably shorter.

A stable democracy demands a process of thoughtful consideration.   Voters have the opportunity to be heard from time to time, but that is different than knee-jerk mob rule.  Gingrich’s suggestion that Iowa’s remaining Supreme Court Justices step down looks less like democracy and more like a coup d’état where polls and the muscle of political groups substitute for guns and military strongmen.

Ejecting judges or forcing them to resign every time people disagree with a ruling will destroy a system designed to ensure each member of our society can find justice whether they have popular political support or not.

The Court acted in a legal manner and the marriage restriction was struck down.  Kicking Justices off the bench will not change that.  Democracy provides those who want sexually restrictive marriage a path to reverse the ruling.  They need to draft and pass laws and/or a constitutional amendment that withstand legal scrutiny.  That may be a painful and difficult task, but it is the way the process is supposed to work.

Replacing an independent judiciary with judges who will pander to win votes as Gingrich is should strike fear in all Iowans.  We all have a stake in preserving the ability of judges to do their jobs without being threatened by political bullies like Gingrich.

Justice prevails only if the people take a longer view than some guy who is singly focused on his fate in the next election.  Newt Gingrich may enjoy political racing, but he appears to not understand the fundamentals a stable and just society needs to survive.  He is wrong on this and he needs to steer his campaign vehicle in a different direction.

###

(Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.