If You Can't Win in Court, Threaten the Judges

You have to admire his staying power, I guess.

There was Bob Vander Plaats, fresh from his third failed bid for governor, and yet still the center of attention.  He held a news conference Friday to launch his push to remove three Iowa Supreme Court justices who face retention votes in November. He opted against an independent run for governor and hopes to stay busy, instead, trying to undermine a different branch of government.

He's determined to un-elect the “unelected” justices who, unanimously, struck down Iowa's ban on same-sex marriages in April 2009. He's promising a grass-roots effort, with groups such as the Mississippi-based American Family Association, providing the green.

Of course, retention votes were never intended to remove judges simply because they make a controversial ruling. But in today's politics, irresponsible is the new acceptable. A vote's a vote. Cast it as you wish. And Vander Plaats wants you to use it for revenge.

If you can't win in court, threaten judges. I sense the culture warriors are just about out of bullets. Vander Plaats claimed he was moved to action when a federal judge in California struck down that state's constitutional same-sex marriage ban. I can understand the desperation.

After three weeks of testimony, during which gay marriage opponents offered virtually zero evidence, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled, surprise, in favor of civil rights for gays and lesbians.

Apparently, to succeed in court, you need to offer real evidence and solid arguments and compelling legal rationales. Walking in with a bullhorn in one hand and a pile of dubious junk science in the other doesn't cut it.

David Boies, one of the attorneys that spearheaded the challenge of the California ban, said it better than I can on CBS News:

"In a court of law you've got to come in and you've got to support those opinions, you've got to stand up under oath and cross-examination," Boies said. "And what we saw at trial is that it's very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens of the right to vote [sic] to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature, or in debates where they can't be cross-examined.

"But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that's what happened here. There simply wasn't any evidence, there weren't any of those studies. There weren't any empirical studies. That's just made up. That's junk science. It's easy to say that on television. But a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court you can't do that.

"That's what we proved: We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost," Boies said

This is a real problem for the Grand Order of Perpetual Outrage. And no matter how many justices Vander Plaats picks off, the new “conservative” ones likely won't think much of that approach either. Walker, for example, was appointed by Ronald Reagan and faced Democratic opposition.

 And one of the winning attorneys along with Boies is Ted Olson, a staunch conservative who won Bush v. Gore and was President Bush's solicitor general. Marriage equity isn't just for liberals anymore.

“We believe a conservative value is stable relationships and stable community,” Olson said on Fox News. (See the full video below.)

Given the victory-free track record of Vander Plaats and his allies, the Iowa justices should lose much sleep.

I've read assertions this will drive the Republican base to the polls. Perhaps. But it may also wake up voters who may care little about Chet or Roxanne but do care deeply about defending a strong, independent judiciary from a misguided attack. We'll see who has the most staying power.

Comments: (319) 398-8452; todd.dorman@gazcomm.com