As officers of the court we lawyers are ethically constrained from openly criticizing the court. As a practical matter we just won’t criticize publicly because to do so risks angering those who rule for or against our clients. My opponents would love nothing better than for me to openly criticize the judges and justices. If I did my clients would soon  seek out another lawyer who was more constrained and less likely to anger the Court.

So when someone throws their hat in the ring to be considered for a judgeship another box is drawn around lawyer critics. Say anything along the lines like, this lawyer isn’t qualified to sit on the bench and you’re clients may suffer should that lawyer be selected to be a judge. You see there is a conundrum involved with lawyers being openly critical of candidates for the court. So if anyone is waiting for lawyer-critics to emerge with a scathing attack on the court or on any one candidate stop waiting; because it’s not going to happen.

SHOULD IOWANS ELECT JUDGES BY POPULAR VOTE?

Now consider elections for judges like they have in Wisconsin. Electing judges creates a whole slew of other problems. If you don’t contribute to a successful lawyer’s campaign for judicial election, you run the risk of viewing every adverse ruling with an eye of suspicion. Have your winning opponent be a large contributor to the judge’s campaign and you read every losing decision with a jaundiced eye. Before you stand in court before a sitting judge that is up for election, you want to first make a contribution to his/her campaign war chest. Don’t contribute and your wonder how it might affect the way the judge views your case. They will say it won't affect their impartiality, but human nature being what it is, how can it not?

Even if it has no effect it still leaves a hint of suspicion and if you do contribute it has the appearance of impropriety. Do you want to choose which lawyer to hire based on how much he/she contributed to the last campaign of a sitting judge? I'm getting a headache just thinking about it. At some point common sense has to meet practical magic and the Iowa voters should wake up and smell the coffee.

BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE

So when the Register’s Grant Schulte writes Gender diversity on Iowa’s high court is lacking, I have to roll my eyes and wonder how does the public view lawyers saying nothing in response. Do they believe our silence confirms their suspicions? Do they think the silence from male lawyers is proof of sex discrimination? Remember it wasn’t the male lawyers and judges who removed the one female sitting Justice on the Iowa Supreme Court, it was the voters.

IS SILENCE INDICATIVE OF ANYTHING? 

In being silent we have little choice. To do otherwise risks ethical sanctions or worse; tick off a judge and your clients suffer or so they might think. Did I lose because my lawyer didn’t keep his mouth shut about the Court? Criticize the female candidates and if they win you just screwed your clients. Lawyers sitting on the commission know which candidates are exaggerating their credentials, which ones can write and which aren’t gifted enough to sit on the bench. We know who has a sour disposition, which would have the right personality to create the right judicial temperament that advances rather than embarrasses Iowans and who doesn’t have the right stuff.

DON’T FIX WHAT ISN’T BROKEN

Like it or not the current system works. We’ve had very few problems with Iowa’s judiciary and if you’re waiting for me to criticize the justices, judges and judicial candidates you’re wasting your time reading this. It isn’t going to happen. Gender has nothing to do with which names were sent to the Governor. The list was compiled from which lawyers were the most qualified to serve the law. I may have a different list in my head, but no candidate got through that wasn’t qualified to serve the law. Several that weren’t on the final 9 were also qualified, but that’s for another day. There are times in life when you don’t get it all; you don’t get everything you want. And that has to be good enough, because democracy isn’t perfect. Democracy is imperfect and that’s what makes it work. Just be happy no unqualified candidate won a judicial election (God help us if that happens.) or was put on the list for political reasons; reasons that would be persuasive to laypeople but have nothing to do with being qualified to be a sitting judge. Remember, any idiot can contribute to a politician's campaign; but not many can fool a room of lawyers interviewing candidates for the list-of-three to send to the Governor. Lawyers know lawyers – and lawyers know who is qualified to do the work of the court. People with an ax to grind want to have the power to pick and choose judges based on politics – not judicial temperment - and that’s why voters get to elect legislative officials and not judges. The work of the court is too important to make it simply a popularity contest.

CONCLUSION

Judges and justices serve the law, not popular opinion. Judges have to be above public sentiment and to rule based on past precedent, black letter law and the Iowa Constitution. If you think it's easy then try and get into one of Iowa's law schools. That's your right. Judges don’t have the right to rule based on popular sentiment. And that’s what makes the Iowa judiciary work so well as the third branch of our State goverment.

So what do I think about those selected and those not selected? Wouldn’t you like to know?

Do you know your government?

• Can you name the three branches of our government?
• Can you name the Three Stooges? No Sarah Palin is not one of them.

Would electing Iowa’s judge$ be about $omething other than JU$TICE?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_vNwQ-i0fA

Separation of Powers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5TdkYrcZCg

What is jury duty?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea28nYnurQ8