FARMER SNOOK: "YOU CAN'T MAKE A SILK PURSE FROM A SOW'S EAR"

How can there be any question that applicants for the Iowa Supreme Court will be affected in a negative way by the removal vote? If you believe it won’t then you don’t understand the process or the job and its qualifications. Allow me to argue my point. First, though you’re probably not a lawyer, think about applying as if you were already a judge or a lawyer.

How will ouster affect pool of justice applicants? Des Moines Register, November 20, 2010

From the standpoint of the judicial nomination commission consider who they would want to apply.

For all practical purposes the pool of candidates isn't going to be very large. First you have to be a lawyer. That takes a minimum of seven years in college. The last three are the toughest. After you graduate you will not be allowed to practice unless you pass a bar exam. Not everyone does, so not every law school graduate can practice law. Those that do pass the bar don’t necessarily choose to become a practicing attorney. So not all law school graduates practice law. .

A good candidate would have a certain amount of experience. That means spending years in the practice either toiling away practicing law. Other candidates for the Big Dance (Supreme Court) are already on the bench working in a lower court. You want experience because it says a lot about a lawyer’s character that has the ability to survive the practice of law. Practicing law isn’t for the meek; it takes a tough person with sufficient character that allows for disappointment, criticism, intellectual combat, intellectual chess and a keen intellect. Those are not easy character traits to find in a person and to be a judge they must be balanced. You don’t’ want someone that is a bully or a wimp. Law school doesn’t teach character building; only the law and how to think about the law. The development of the right skill set dates back to childhood and what ma and pa taught in the formative years.

Next, the right judicial candidate should have a solid background in writing and in applying the law to the facts. Usually this means you’ve been accepted to a good law school and have withstood the academic process called the Socratic Method. Law schools are tiered, meaning rank counts. Good grades to count to some extent, as does being selected to participate in the law school’s law review. Law review is a big deal in law school; only the best and brightest are selected to serve on the law review and those that do are more likely to be selected to clerk for judges in either the state or the federal system.

Candidates for a judge and justice opening should have the kind of temperament that would make someone a good jurist. In other words, you have to look, sound and act like a member of an independent and objective branch of the government. American democracy has as its foundation an independent judiciary. Without an independent judiciary, society would become corrupt and fairness as we know it would disintegrate towards lawlessness. Chaos would follow corruption. As an example you wouldn’t want a judge that dyes their hair green, or that screamed at citizens who came before them, nor would you want a judge that ruled according to his or her own personal beliefs and convictions while berating those before him to join the judge’s church or social club. A broad spectrum of character makes for a balanced, fair and more aware judiciary.

Objectivity is a necessary trait in a good judge; meaning you should be able to set aside personal feelings in favor of the legal principles to be applied. As a judge I may not like you personally, but the rule of law may require me to rule counter to my own personal beliefs. That’s objectivity.

You want candidates that are honest, both factually and intellectually. Intellectual honesty means they don’t engage in result-oriented-reasoning. Rulings should be objective in the sense the principles are well known and the facts are applied as presented, not as the judge wants them to be. Fact engineering is dishonest and if allowed to occur eats away at the foundation of justice and in time democracy. A candidate must also possess unending intellectual curiosity for both history and current affairs. You must believe learning is a life-long pursuit. You must believe that justice is an evolving concept that never goes into hibernation.

Lastly you need someone with character that likes hard work and a challenge, because your case load will challenge you both physically and mentally.

TURING THE JUDICIARY ON IT'S HEAD FOR THE SAKE OF POLITICAL INFLUENCE

With these few characteristics let’s see what Bob Vander Plaats’ candidate would look like. They would be someone, preferable a lawyer, that would ignore the black letter law of the United States and Iowa Constitutions in favor of religious dogma from a moral code that he himself can’t articulate and a character that bends to political will. They would not be objective or intellectually honest, but instead would write decisions in favor of their own personal religious philosophy. Instead of writing an opinion like Varnum his candidate would write same-sex marriage is prohibited for reasons personal to his/her own belief. (Remember the Varnum decision was unanimous; meaning there was no debate that the Constitution dictated the result.)  What Vander Plaats is advocating is that intellectually honest people need not apply. Vander Plaats wants judges that act like politicians, not jurists.

With this in mind ask yourself what message did this send to all the judges and justices we now have on the bench in Iowa?

- THE MESSAGE SENT - "YOU NEED NOT APPLY"

If I’m already on the bench and up there in years, meaning I’ve got the kind of experience the Iowa Supreme Court requires and the selection commission is seeking; that means I’m probably within 15 years of retirement. Why would I want to give up a job that is providing for retirement and has decent pay, for a job where voters will throw me out of office for doing what I was selected to do? If I’m a judge in Iowa I have job security; and to get that job security I’ve given up my law practice and all business connections that used to provide me with a source of income. If I lose the judge job I’m basically screwed financially. So the heck with the voters and the selection committee, because I’ve a spouse, children and probably grandchildren to consider; at this point in my life unemployment is not an option. If I’m on the bench already the message was loud and clear: You’d better not apply.

THE RETENTION VOTE MUST BE USED FOR THE RIGHT REASONS

There is disconnect between the selection process and the voter’s right to retention that has been bastardized in this instance.  

PLANTING THE RIGHT CROP

Now let’s go to the pool of available lawyers-judges and see what’s what. You’ve basically two pools: those whose practices are working, but who want to serve Iowa’s judiciary; and then there are those who need a job that pays them more than their lousy practice is providing.

If my practice is working and I’m making a decent income why would I give up all sources of income to take a job where the public can remove me for doing my job? Doesn’t really make sense does it? It would be sort of like appropriating to the public a farmers land for planting corn instead of soy beans if the public were allowed to vote on crop rotation. Even though the farmer may have experience and a good Iowa State agronomy education, he could lose it all for following good agricultural practices. If that were the case would you want to be a farmer?

The ones whose practices aren’t making enough to survive aren’t the lawyers that make good judges, because they probably don’t have the necessary skill-set to survive under any conditions. Remember as a candidate you will need all qualifications enumerated above. And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that a candidate whose practice isn’t successful is missing at least half of the necessary qualifications. The two that stand out are intellectual curiosity (brain power) and strong character (hard workers that duck the tough issues).

So now we have whittled the pool of those willing to risk financial ruin to the few that have low wattage brain power, an ax to grind, act like politicians, aren’t successful at the practice of law and/or who hate hard work. Do you still think the retention vote will not affect the pool of candidates willing to take on this job of public service? Would you? Of course you wouldn’t. The Vander Plaats group and those following their lead is like the tail wagging the dog.

Guess again bubble boy.