Branstad's action is both admirable and misguided

I'm not going to lose any sleep over the 60-year terms Gov. Terry Branstad handed down this week for 38 murderers now in prison who committed those crimes as minors.

And I admire the governor's compassion for victims' families, who might be dragged back into court on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling labeling mandatory life sentences for minors convicted of homicide as “cruel and unusual punishment.” The governor wanted to head off that trauma.

Unfortunately, the governor's admirable intentions ignore how our judicial system works. The way it has to work.

Supreme Court rulings aren't suggestions. They're the law of the land. We can't make them disappear just because we don't like them, or the messes they make.

And in this case, Miller v. Alabama, the nation's highest court says states cannot impose harsh, mandatory life sentences on minors who murder. Judges still can put these offenders behind bars for decades, even for life, but not until they have considered the individual circumstances of each defendant.

Branstad's blanket order commuting those life sentences to 60 years ignores the main thrust of that ruling, which strikes not only at life sentences but also at mandatory terms. He responds to a demand for individualized sentencing with a one-size-fits-all action. A guy who refuted Bob Vander Plaats' claim that a governor can nullify court rulings with executive orders is now perilously close to doing just that. I can't find anything in the ruling indicating that this is an acceptable response.

So I asked for a detailed explanation of the legal argument behind Branstad's action.

“The governor exercised his legal authority to commute sentences in accordance with the Iowa Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court in Miller found mandatory life without parole for juveniles convicted of murder in the First Degree to be unconstitutional. The governor acted both in compliance with the Supreme Court's opinion in Miller and the Iowa Constitution when he commuted the sentences for juvenile murders from life with no parole, to life with the opportunity for parole consideration after 60 years,” said spokesman Tim Albrecht in an email.

His commutation order details several reasons why he dislikes the ruling, but not why he believes Iowa can sidestep it.

But this administration rarely feels the need to show its work. The governor recently vowed to halt Medicaid expansion, thanks to another Supreme Court ruling more to his liking, for reasons that boiled down to ObamaCare is bad. Not good enough. Even five-termers still need to convince and explain. Too often, the answer is "I'm the governor, that's why."

Branstad should have left this issue to our courts, the same courts that put these offenders away in the first place. I understand why he wanted to avoid it, but the governor is admirably mistaken.