Iowa Governor-Elect Terry Branstad said yesterday during a AP media forum that he would consider nominee’s judicial philosophy in light of retention vote where three justices were ousted from the Iowa Supreme Court.  Radio Iowa quotes Branstad saying:

In light of the same sex marriage decision and the public vote to reject three members of the supreme court, it would be appropriate for the governor to specifically want to know issues about that philosophy.

The Des Moines Register reports saying he is looking for judicial restraint and he is concerned about the nominating commission’s impartiality:

Branstad said he is concerned about the commission’s impartiality.

“Despite that, I’m hopeful that they will recognize and respect the will of the people in this state, that the voters overwhelmingly rejected three members of the Supreme Court, and I think they want a change in the philosophy of the court,” he said.

Branstad said Iowans want justices with “more judicial restraint” who won’t overstep their bounds in the future. “The Supreme Court, I think, made a tragic mistake in their decision on same-sex marriage,” he said…

…Branstad said he will not grill justice candidates specifically about their feelings about the ruling, but he will ask about their “philosophy with regard to the separation of powers” between the judicial, legislative and executive branches.

“I want to hear that people respect the genius of our founding fathers in this state and this country when they devised a system with clear separation of powers, and recognize that the powers of the judiciary are restricted,” he said.

“They need to respect that on issues like this, it’s really the Legislature that has the responsibility, and if the Legislature has made a mistake, the courts can indeed send it back to Legislature to be corrected.”…

Another way to restore public support for the judicial system is for the Legislature to allow a vote of the people on amending the constitution to restore one-man, one-woman marriage, Branstad said. Changing the constitution requires approval in consecutive two-year general assemblies and then a simple majority approval by the voters.

The Republican-dominated House is expected to approve such a vote, but Gronstal has promised to block it.

Branstad said: “Just because you’re a leader in the Legislature doesn’t mean you’re a dictator or you have the right to make unilateral decisions. And I think on an issue of this importance and magnitude … certainly the senators should be given an opportunity to vote on it.”

It is incredibly encouraging to hear Governor-Elect Branstad address the judiciary in this manner, and I applaud him.  Some thought that Bob Vander Plaats, Branstad’s former opponent in the Republican primary and now CEO of The FAMiLY LEADER, would have a chill run up his spine when Branstad said he wouldn’t ask candidate’s opinion of the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling on DOMA.  Not quite.

In a press conference today, where I thought perhaps I would see pigs fly, Vander Plaats who had crossed swords with Branstad on this issue complimented and affirmed his statements at the Iowa Statehouse.  Vander Plaats affirmed his statements regarding the “genius of the Constitution,” his desire to bring transparency and change to the current system, his position on letting people vote, and view of the separation of powers.  You can watch today’s press conference below:

7 comments
  1. A chill ran up my spine when I think of Van der Plaats and Barnstads blatant disregard of civil rights and their facist ideas of a non-independent judiciary. What happened to America????

    1. I got a chill up my spine when I think you are ok with a judicial oligarchy. So judges should never be held accountable? You obviously don’t have a clue about how they are selected in Iowa either.

    2. I got a chill up my spine when I think you are ok with a judicial oligarchy. So judges should never be held accountable? You obviously don’t have a clue about how they are selected in Iowa either.

    3. I got a chill up my spine when I think you are ok with a judicial oligarchy. So judges should never be held accountable? You obviously don’t have a clue about how they are selected in Iowa either.

    4. I got a chill up my spine when I think you are ok with a judicial oligarchy. So judges should never be held accountable? You obviously don’t have a clue about how they are selected in Iowa either.

    5. I got a chill up my spine when I think you are ok with a judicial oligarchy. So judges should never be held accountable? You obviously don’t have a clue about how they are selected in Iowa either.

  2. Actually I do know how they are elected/appointed. It is not an oligarchy by any means, as evidenced by their removal. The legislature clearly failed to define marriage in a constitutional amendment-The judges had no choice but to UNANIMOUSLY agree—not even one dissent. So they get voted out of office because of an angry electorate. Sorry, but I still; think that an independent judiciary is our best bet from being bullied by the will of the people (think slavery). It worries me that so called activist judges are called activist when someone does not agree with their finding. Glad I moved out of state—and i assume you are glad I moved also 🙂

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

IFPC ACTION To Sponsor Final Rally of the Iowa Judge Bus Tour Urging ‘No Retention’ On Activist Judges

Pleasant Hill, IA – IFPC Action will be the key sponsor of…

Christie Vilsack’s Shameless Politicization of Iowa’s Drought

Iowa hasn’t seen a summer like this since 1957,  Iowa’s crops, corn…

The Republican Party of Iowa and Iowa House District 50 Race

I had somebody email the invitation below to me last night: The…

Iowa Homeschoolers Wooed by Ted Cruz, Candidates

(Des Moines, IA) Approximately 800 Iowa homeschoolers descended upon Des Moines and…