Litigation

Top Justice Defends IA Merit Selection, Marriage Ruling

By Peter Hardin

With national attention on Iowa, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark S. Cady today staunchly defended both a controversial court decision permitting same-sex marriage and Iowa’s merit selection process for choosing judges.

Justice Cady (photo at right) delivered his State of the Judiciary Message to legislators on the same day a New York Times editorial, entitled “Impeachment as Intimidation,” denounced a proposal by several Iowa House Republicans to impeach four state Supreme Court justices, including the chief justice.

Meanwhile Bob Vander Plaats, a conservative activist who helped lead a successful drive that ousted three Iowa justices from the court last year, launched a statewide tour by urging the four sitting justices to resign and recommending a start to impeachment proceedings if they don’t.

?Iowa has the best method in the nation for selecting its justices,? Justice Cady told joint session of the Iowa General Assembly, according to an Iowa Independent article. ?This method, known as merit selection, must be maintained today to help us move forward toward a better tomorrow.?

Justice Cady indicated he and his three fellow justices are staying on the bench. The justices knew the marriage decision would provoke strong reaction but the ruling was appropriate, he said:

?In our government, courts are legal institutions ? not political institutions. When a person comes before a judge, that person expects the judge to be neutral and to render a ruling based upon the proven facts of the case and applicable legal principles ? not based upon public opinion. Public opinion often shifts. The will of the people followed by the courts is the will expressed in our law as constrained by the written principles in the constitution. If this were any other way, ‘why have a constitution?’

?It is also written into our code of ethics, modeled after national standards, that all judges must make decisions without being ‘swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.’ If it were otherwise, the rule of law would surely be compromised, as would our constitution.

Unlike our political institutions, courts serve the law, not the interests of constituents.  Courts serve the law, not the demands of special interest groups.  Courts serve the law, not the electorate?s reaction to a particular decision.  By serving the rule of law, courts protect the civil, political, economic, and social rights of all citizens.”

Justice Cady also spoke of efforts to help citizens better understand the work of the courts and develop more confidence in them. To this end, he said, the high court will hold some of its oral arguments in communities around the state.

The New York Times editorial said it is unlikely the Iowa Senate, dominated by Democrats, would agree with any plan to remove the four justices. It warned that a trial would be “would be disruptive and intentionally intimidating,” and the editorial concluded:

“The nation?s democracy and cherished rights rely on keeping court decision-making above the fickle tugs of ordinary politics. Ousting judges to register disagreement with a particular court decision is a dangerous road to go down.”

Vander Plaats, commencing a 99-county tour, spoke to a group of six locals in Leon, Ia., according to a Des Moines Register article.

Sixty-one Iowans have applied to be considered for the three open seats on the state Supreme Court created when voters dumped the three jurists who were onaretention ballot in November. The applicants were listed in a press release by the Iowa Judicial Branch. To learn more about the Iowa controversy, check out Gavel Grab.

Full post as published by The Gavel on January 12, 2011 (boomark / email).