Retentionageddon Update

I left the state for a few days. It was such a liberating feeling, to be beyond the shadowy jurisdictional reach of our black-robed activist tyrants. My freedoms remained in tact all weekend.

Then I returned to find that the effort to toss three Iowa Supreme Court justices to the curb, and perhaps other suspicious judicial types, continued in high gear. And according to polling, it appears to be working. Curses.

The Des Moines Register's Iowa Poll showed that 37 percent of those surveyed want the three supremes gone. And 34 percent want to keep them.

Then it gets murkier. Ten percent said they'd keep some but not all, 11 percent said they would not vote, at all, on retention and 8 percent are unsure.

Then, 10 percent said they would hover, dramatically, over the no box on the ballot for several seconds before voting yes, reluctantly. Coin flipping, rock-paper-scissors and eyes-closed were each around 1 percent.

I guess the message is that it's going to be very tough for the justices to get to the 50 percent threshold needed to remain on the court. The Iowa for Freedom/Vander Paatsian strategy has always been to join the votes of  highly motivated court-loathers to the ballots of apathetic won't-vote/always-vote-no-on-judges folks and build a very-outraged/could-care-less coalition for victory. Brilliant.

And with victory within their grasp, the justice hunters have been careful to tone down their rhetoric. Good one. Did I have you going?

U.S. Rep. Steve King, who was the main guy driving last week's throw the judges under the bus tour, says we're on the road to Sparta:

"I think that if we can't defend marriage, that it becomes very hard to defend life," King said. "Marriage is the crucible by which we pour all of our values and pass them on to our children, and that is how the culture is renewed each time. So, if we lose marriage - for instance, if our children are raised in warehouses, so to speak. There have been civilizations that have tried to do that. The Spartans did that. They took the children away and taught them to be warriors. It's a good way to defend a country, but not much of a way to run a civilization."So, I'm afraid if that happened - if we lose the marriage, we lose the home, we lose the nuclear family then we can't teach our values. We won't be able to teach our faith. We won't be able to teach life. We won't be able to teach our Constitutional values either. That's why I'm afraid it's going to be very, very difficult to defend life."

"So, I'm afraid if that happened - if we lose the marriage, we lose the home, we lose the nuclear family then we can't teach our values. We won't be able to teach our faith. We won't be able to teach life. We won't be able to teach our Constitutional values either. That's why I'm afraid it's going to be very, very difficult to defend life."

Yikes. If we're becoming Sparta, I really need to work on my abs.

The Iowa Family Policy Center's Chuck Hurley says we need more some more government intervetnion in the bedroom. Yawn.

Bob Vander Plaats, heady from the growing certainty of his triumph, decided it was high time to roll out his classic "governors can nullify Supreme Court rulings," shtick one more time.

He insists a vote to throw out the justices will put pressure on the heavily favored next governor, Terry Branstad, to issue an executive order stopping same-sex marriages until we all vote on a constitutional ban. Not that they'd actually go away if it failed.

Branstad's camp says he still believes, correctly, that a governor does not have that power. As do most fifth-grade civics students.

But this is a little taste of what Branstad has to look forward to, after giving BVP and his crew a free hand to go after the courts, with TB's silent blessing.

It  looked like smart politics to keep Vander Plaats busy with something other than running for governor as an independent. But now, if  the courts crusade triumphs, Branstad may find he's helped create a monster that could dog his new administration. The executive order fantasy will be demand No.1. There will be many more.

And that pressure will be amplified if Democrats somehow manage to hold the Iowa Senate, House or both. BVP etc. will demand that Branstad drop everything to carry the crusade. That will be interesting.

Elsewehere, there were some late voices of reason. Former Govs. Bob Ray and  Tom Vilsack made last ditch pitches to stave off damage to Iowa's courts:

“While I may have disagreed with a decision that went against my client, I always knew the judges were approaching these decisions with fairness and trying to weigh the various equities and trying to do justice,” Vilsack said. “We're now faced with a circumstance and a situation where our impartial system is under attack and I have deep concerns about the impact that that will have, not just on this ballot initiative, but on future court decisions and on future members of the court.“I'm concerned about the impact that this vote could have on disrupting the capacity on the courts to handle the enormous volume of cases at every level,” said Vilsack, a Mount Pleasant native who noted he already voted absentee in support of the justices and judges on his ballot. “What you could have is a substantial breakdown in the judicial system in the state.”

“I'm concerned about the impact that this vote could have on disrupting the capacity on the courts to handle the enormous volume of cases at every level,” said Vilsack, a Mount Pleasant native who noted he already voted absentee in support of the justices and judges on his ballot. “What you could have is a substantial breakdown in the judicial system in the state.”

The Register also raised the possibility that a defeated Culver would still have time to appoint replacement justices before he lugs his stuff out of Terrace Hill.

It would be tempting, of course, given the fact-free, scorched-earth nature of the anti-retention offensive, but I think it would be a mistake. If the voters toss 'em and elect Branstad, he should get to pick the replacements. Ignoring those verdicts would only further politicize the courts and play into the hands of those who want even more radical changes.