Lest ye be judged

It must be a delicate enterprise, trying not to sound like a snob while explaining your specialized job, one that only you and a handful of other people perform.

I suppose it doesn't help, either, that you wear those intimidating black robes and sit so much higher than everyone else in the courtroom.

But it's just politics (or willful ignorance) for lawmakers and assorted others to say that Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady's Condition of the Judiciary address -- the one where he called for more openness and transparancy, said the court had to do a better job explaining itself to average Iowans -- was "arrogant".

I couldn't help but wonder during The Gazette's editorial board meeting with Cady today about the political posturing that has brought us to this point where a justice just can't win: You're called out to explain yourself, but called a snob when you do. You're called out as incompetent by people who don't have the foggiest idea what you do or why you do it that way.

Cady's visit was part of a larger push to help Iowans understand what the state Supreme Court does -- something we used to learn in civics class. In an age of knee-jerk suspicion of specialists, I guess this is what we're left with: The Traveling Justices. I hope it helps.

But if the problem, like I suspect it is, is politics, not civics, then it won't make much difference.

Justices could take Supreme Court hearings right into people's kitchens, pull out their best folksy Andy Griffith impersonations, and still be dismissed as elitists.

Personally, I want a high court composed of people who have a better-than-average handle on how the thing is supposed to run. Just like I want a doctor who knows more than I do about surgery and disease.

Which isn't to say that we should blindly follow every doctor or lawyer or smarty pants with a briefcase. Inquiry is a critical part of open government.

Inquisition, on the other hand, gets us nowhere.

Meanwhile, the State Judicial Nominating Commission released resumes and writing samples from the 60 folks who've put their names in for the three Supreme Court vacancies. You can read their credentials here.

Or skip the research if you want to. After all, they're just a bunch of know-it-alls.