The American Bar Association President Wants To Suppress Free Speech

The Des Moines Register has a guest column on the Iowa Supreme Court Justice ousters by some lawyer from Florida named Stephen N. Zack.  He's the president of the Liberal American Bar Assocation.  He has lots of suggestions for you stupid Iowans and how lawyers ought to suppress your free speech and right to petition the government:

Some who object to that ruling might applaud the results of the retention election. But the group that holds the majority opinion one day could well be in the minority the next. That's the whole reason Lady Justice wears a blindfold.

Right. It's a bunch of blindfolded people who were selected by a panel comprised of 86% registered Democrats. One of them basically bought his seat from Tom Vilsack and the Democratic Party.

What can be done to fix the problems so clearly illustrated by this election?

First, the corrosive effect of big money in judicial elections must be addressed. It is unacceptable that groups of all political stripes, often without any clear identification of donors, poured more than $13 million into state judicial races across the country. It's time for the public to come together, calling out third party groups that try to buy a place on the courts for their opinions and creating public pressure against this kind of secret influence.

What a stinking fascist this Stephen N. Zack is. He wants to take away the Right of people to assemble and to contribute money towards a particular issue to help inform the public? Then who are we left with to talk about the judges? Certainly not the newspapers, who never ever tell us about what kind of lousy rulings and sentences judges like David Baker have handed down over the years. What next? Do you want to come after the bloggers, the "gutless fucking cowards" who are taking "anonymous potshots at people" like judges who do stupid things?

And how about the irony of Zack, a lawyer from Florida, writing to you stupid dolts in Iowa about how he's pissed that money was contributed from outside the state.  That's rich.  Doesn't Zack's free advertising for his cause and opinion in the DMR constitute something of value?

Oh, but there's more:

Second, Iowa's system of merit selection and nonpartisan retention elections is better than some states but not ideal. When a hot issue occurs in the middle of a retention cycle, the debate rhetoric can run even hotter. Terms of service that run until a judge reaches a specified age are best. States with retention systems could cool things off by extending the terms as long as possible. The American Bar Association recommends 15 years. Iowa Supreme Court terms currently are only eight years. Longer terms make it easier for judges to concentrate on the job at hand rather than a looming election.

In other words, you want lifetime appointments and little chance at removal.  But only after you've completely suppressed free speech.  Good luck getting that law change through the Iowa Legislature now, jerk.

The organizer of the campaign against the three justices said the effort was designed to "send a message." It is a message - a wake-up call to all Americans who believe that Lady Justice should not remove her blindfold and stick her finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. Working together, we will preserve the dream of America's founding fathers: that our courts must be free of all forms of intimidation in order to protect our liberty.

Saying this as somebody who supports gay marriage, just not the way it was done in Iowa, I think this interloper needs to butt the hell out.  He's an obvious tool, and it's interesting how the comments are on this piece:

Get over it.

Well, said, Murph. And, as far as outside money goes, where was our new friend Steven Zack when outside third parties were pouring money on the plaintiff's lawyers that carried the ball in the Varnum case? That legal team, Lambda Legal, is by their own admission, funded by outside third parties. Where's the hand-wringing over that? And, where were they when the case was being made to throw three justices onto the street? Lamda and their funders could have been here helping make the case for the three justices; but, no. They were elsewhere...stirring the pot for somebody else. And, leaving the Supremes to fend for themselves. Well done, guys...

we don't give a DAMN what you think...

I am an Iowan. I do NOT appriciate a slick Miami lawyer telling me how to organize my Iowa justice system. Thanks again DMR !!

Some of you need to go back and the read the DSM article "Court: Schools can be sued even if parents sign waivers". It is a bunch of crap but the court ruled the way the court ruled. However, Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justice Mark Cady dissented. They argued the Legislature should resolve the matter, not the courts, which I beleive is correct. If Chief Justice Marsha Ternus ruled with that opinion in the homosexual marriage case she would probably still be on the bench. But she may have still gotten voted out because she does not know there is an underage drinking party going on in her backyard. I voted against her for that reason.

An outside interest in the name of Stephen N. Zack, a lawyer and president of the ABA, writes a guest column admonishing the effect of outside interests regarding Iowa politics. The laws of this country and this state allows this to take place. I'm always humored when the lawyers whine about the mess they created.

An outside interest writing to complain about outside interests.

homphobia is the copout used by pro-gays. Heaven forbid that Iowans actually had OTHER reasons to get rid of the three....

Anyone complaining about the possible influences that outside political groups (anti-gays) carried in our recent election need also to complain about the outside money that started flowing into the state 20 years ago in much quieter and stealthy methods from other outside groups (pro-gay). NEITHER SIDE IS CLEAN IN THIS ARGUMENT - so why not just discuss where we are at now and where we might be going. The hindsight blame game is lame......

I respect this newspaper's right to offer opinions on issues of the day, and to find and publish columns that complement the newspaper's position. Misery loves company, or so they say... I have a fundamental different opinion about the recent judicial retention vote. I believe the judiciary, when deciding cases at an appellate level (intrepreting the law), is expected to write decisions that reflect the narrowly defined intent of the law. If we need a law for homosexual marriage, then let's get it on the books through a legitimate law-making process. To apply the wrong law in making their unanimous decision, the Iowa Supreme Court justices demonstrated significant ncompetence. To somehow suggest that Iowa voters made the wrong decision by throwing out incompetent judtices is ridiculous. Furthermore, we don't need outsiders, especially legal hacks from Florida, telling us we, the people/voters of Iowa, made the wrong decision.