Judicial Condition -- Theater, Jitters, Silence and Sanity

DES MOINES -- Chief Justice Mark Cady gave it a shot.

The chief of a shrinking Supreme Court tribe seemed nervous as he looked out through his dark rimmed spectacles at the spectacle of a joint session of the Iowa Legislature Wednesday. I'm unsure if his graying hair got any grayer during his 52-minute Condition of the Judiciary address, but at one point he said the Federalist Papers were written in the 1970s.

Jitters. But who could blame him?

If some in this august body had their way, the House chamber where he spoke would be transformed into a tribunal of impeachment for Cady and three remaining justices who struck down Iowa's ban on same-sex marriages in 2009. Three other justices were removed from office in November's retention vote.

Those unprecedented realities made Cady's speech extraordinary. Unlike past judicial conditions, people wanted to hear it.

Cady called for understanding between government branches and more transparency in the courts. He said, from time to time, Iowa's judicial selection system has weathered accusations of partisanship, but it is still a good way to pick competent judges.

He explained how the controversial Varnum marriage decision is consistent with 160-plus years of Iowa history, during which courts have been called on more than 1,000 times to judge the constitutionality of legislative actions. Just 150 or so acts were overturned.

And he didn't seem at all bothered by having to teach fifth-grade civics to some of Iowa's top political minds.

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

Cady called lawmakers "distinguished," and he even invited them over for coffee and cookies.

So how'd he do?

"He threw a match on the tinderbox, in my opinion," Sen. Kent Sorenson, R-Indianola, said after the speech. He isn't a big fan of the current court, or its marriage ruling. He thought Cady should have ignored all the elephants in the room. They're the ones who stayed seated didn't applaud.

But did it make impeachment more or less likely?

"I think you should ask the people who have been talking about that," said Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, who was sporting a "Support the Courts" sticker.

But the impeachment backers weren't talking. Reps. Kim Pearson, Glen Massie and Tom Shaw, three freshmen pushing for articles of impeachment, declined to be interviewed. They're willing to take on the state's highest court, but not the Statehouse press corps.

"I think they're freshmen. They want some opportunity to digest...Actually that's a thoughtful response," said House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, praising the impeachers' non-response. But he called Cady's speech "thoughtful."

And cooler-headed Rep. Richard Anderson, R-Clarinda, chair of the Judiciary Committee that would have to sign off on impeachment, was talking. He told Gazette scribe James Q. Lynch that impeachment is favored by a "passionate minority of new legislators."

"A majority of legislators don't see it that way. I don't see it that way," he said.

Sanity prevails, for now. Or maybe it was the coffee and cookies.