Branstad knows malfeasance when he sees it; Judicial Watch Issued

The once and future Governor, Terry Branstad, says he's read that state constitution, and he's not convinced impeaching three Iowa Supreme Court justices is a prudent move. They over-reached and stuff, but he's not smelling much malfeasance. And frankly, it's hard to miss. Smells a lot like cooked cabbage:

“I think if you look and read the Constitution, which I have, I think it's pretty obvious. The Constitution says what the grounds for impeachment are. My reading is it's not there,” he said. “There's a difference between malfeasance and over-reaching, I think. I really think that if people look at the Constitution, I think the remedy is that when they come up for retention that people have a chance to vote them out. I think that's the appropriate remedy. I don't think that impeachment is the appropriate remedy.”

Now, I was sort of hard on our departing Big Lug when he took four solid dithering days to conjure up an opinion on the court's big marriage ruling in April 2009. Perhaps you've heard about that decision.

So for the record, it took Branstad 13 days to stand up to the crystal-clear lunacy of this judicial impeachment drive, led by three GOP House members-elect who have yet to be informed where the little lawmakers' rooms are, let alone the closet where the impeachment nukes are stored.

On Dec. 21, Branstad saidhe didn't want to get involved in some other branch of government's bidness. On Monday, he finally said what should be said.

I'm appreciative, but I fear I must declare a new champ in the judicial hot potato dithering category, gubernatorial division. Gov. Culver will immediately relinquish the trophy, a handsome set of wringing hands.

Elsewhere...

Nathan Tucker, Davenport lawyer and only living Iowan who helped write the state constitution in 1857, has formed Iowa Judicial Watch, or IJW.

I was all ready to hate this, my knee set on full jerk, but then IJW went and demanded a more transparent process for the Judicial Nominating Commission, which picks judges and will fill three vacancies on your Iowa Supreme Court.

OK, I'm listening.

Tucker's outfit is pushing the commission to live up to its promises for more transparency, including live webstreaming of interviews with potential nominees. IJW asked for a copy of the judicial application form and filed Freedom of Information requests:

For instance, on December 29th, Iowa Judicial Watch (IJW) made the simple request for a copy of the application form to be used by attorneys applying for the three pending Supreme Court vacancies. When this request was ignored, IJW made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for a list of all those who requested an application and received one before we did. This has also been ignored.Pursuant to Iowa's Freedom of Information Act, on December 19th, IJW also requested:•All written communication received by members of the State Nominating Commission (individually or collectively) in support of, or opposition to, any applicant for the three vacancies on the Iowa Supreme Court.•All memorandum or other documents regarding this vacancy generated by the Commission, including but not limited to the minutes of meetings held by the Commission since November 2, 2010. Please include a copy of the Commission's internal rules of procedure and, if it is not included in such rules, a description of the procedure the Commission uses when names of potential candidates are suggested to the Commission but those candidates have not yet completed an application.To date, this request has also been ignored.

Pursuant to Iowa's Freedom of Information Act, on December 19th, IJW also requested:

•All written communication received by members of the State Nominating Commission (individually or collectively) in support of, or opposition to, any applicant for the three vacancies on the Iowa Supreme Court.

•All memorandum or other documents regarding this vacancy generated by the Commission, including but not limited to the minutes of meetings held by the Commission since November 2, 2010. Please include a copy of the Commission's internal rules of procedure and, if it is not included in such rules, a description of the procedure the Commission uses when names of potential candidates are suggested to the Commission but those candidates have not yet completed an application.

To date, this request has also been ignored.

Judicial Watch also wants the commission to follow open meetings laws, make all its documents available online, allow for public comment and require applicants to fill out a more comprehensive questionnaire about conflicts of interest, philosophy, writings on legal issues etc. The group also is urging the commission to let Branstad pick the new justices from a pool of nine nominees, not three pools of three.

I have not received a blow to the noggin. I understand that Tucker and his watchers are digging for fodder to feed a litmus-test-driven assault on applicants and nominees who they believe aren't proper "constitutionalists,' aka, people who will issue rulings they like. They don't want independent courts, they want politicians in robes who see the world their way.

But they would not be the only beneficiaries of openness and transparency. We would all benefit. So would the courts.

Iowans do need to know more about the people being interviewed and nominated for important, powerful judicial posts. We should be able to follow the process, and review all the same information the commission reviews. This process has been veiled and sequestered long enough, and that lack of transparency has only played into the hands of court-bashers who distort the judiciary's role.

More openness would allow the public to view nominees and judges in a broader context, their qualifications, careers and judicial record. I think such a process would actually make it much harder to bludgeon judges with a single, controversial issue. I think truly solid judges with strong records would survive.

We should pay more attention to our courts, not just when they make headlines. I've railed on folks for beating up judges for a single opinion, but we also shouldn't let a single, contentious issue lead us to immediately reject changes to the selection process that might improve it.

I'm not afraid to open up the process, regardless of who is doing the opening.  

And, ironically, I noticed that IJW is a 501(c)(4) organization, the same IRS designation as all the infamous, shady political groups from the last election cycle that aren't required to disclose their donors. So I guess in this case transparency ends at the courthouse gate.