Grant Schulte Of The Des Moines Register: "Nevermind That The Iowa Judicial Nominating Commission Is Comprised Of 86% Democrats"

Grant Schulte, a "reporter" for the Democrat bootlickers running the Des Moines Register, has a story in Saturday's paper ("How will ousters affect pool of justice applicants?") that almost entirely ignores the fact that the Iowa Judicial Nominating Commission is comprised of something like 86% registered Democrats.  Here's how close Grant gets to the problem, starting on the 19th paragraph of the story:

State law requires a gender and geography balance on the commission. When Denefe's term ends in April 2011, her replacement will be a male from the same district where she lives. The board does not have to be balanced with Democrats and Republicans, because of a constitutional provision that requires membership "without reference to political affiliation."

Seven members are lawyers elected by fellow attorneys who are admitted to the state bar.

Another seven are non-lawyers, appointed by the governor and Senate-confirmed for staggered terms. Among the group is an accountant, a factory worker, a retired schoolteacher, a real estate agent, an administrative assistant and a political science professor at Loras College. A central Iowa member, Steve Brody, is a businessman and Clive City Council member.

The panel chairman, Mark Cady, is the most senior Iowa Supreme Court justice other than the chief. Cady, appointed by Branstad in 1998, will become the longest-serving current justice after Ternus' term expires on Dec. 31.

The candidate mix usually includes private attorneys, district and appellate court judges, administrative law judges and government lawyers. Occasionally, a law professor will apply.

The commission meets around a long table at the Iowa Judicial Branch building, in a ground-floor conference room that overlooks downtown Des Moines

Really, Grant Schulte, do you really think that's going to fly? Do you think we're a bunch of idiots? Just how did the Commission get stacked in favor of registered Democrats? You want to ask that question? Want to research that story? No, you and your editors won't, because you're perfectly happy with an unfair, stacked deck.

Some of the comments on this story:

You believe for even one second that Vilsack and Culver didn't consider the political affiliation of their appointments to the "commission"? Just sheer luck of the draw made 12 of the 13 members liberal activist Deemocrats?! Grands smells a rat, and so should you!

So according to the DMR, there are some "elite" lawyers that would love to have a prestigious, powerful, life-affecting position on the ISC yet don't really want to have to answer to the public about anything they might do while serving on the court? They want the power but the accountability? Sound familiar?

Anyone anticipating applying should make sure they've made adequate financial contributions to Democrats and the Democrat party. This is a common thread running through all the current justices. This whole SC is nothing but a bunch of liberal Democrat lawyers selected by Democrat lawyers. The process smells to high heaven. It's pure stinking corrupt politics.

If the "Judicial Nominating Commission" is made up of gangsters called members of the BAR association, would it not be a CONflict of Interest to require that applicants for the vacancies be BAR members too ? There is NO fair balance of justice when there is NO FAIR BALANCE on this so called Judicial Nominating Commission. And certainly it stands to reason that there would be NO BALANCE IN THE COURTS. They ARE PARTIAL, BIASED, with a twist of CONflict(s) of Interest(s) and would ONLY want to increase THEIR bottom line (hence the moniker: Bottom Feeders) The system is not a legitimate system when It BARS Equal Access to the Courts by its Citizens who are routinely and agressively told to "Get a Lawyer" you don't have the right to speak or to be heard or to self-defense! These courts are a posterboard for a comedy of errors with these buffoons in office. Got a traffic ticket lately ? What is a Criminal Surcharge ?

For a story as important as this one, you'd think the DM Register would make it accurate, thorough and balanced. As the Iowa judiciary crumbles, so goes the Fourth Estate. The article asserts what questions can and and can't be answered, but offers no point of reference for these mandates. Is this by law or administrative rule or simply the result club rules cooked up by the legal profession? These restrictions hardly seem reasonably. Furthermore, does the commission look at the candidate's body of legal work? If they're already a judge (appeals court or district court), does the commission examine their decisions? It is appalling that the public's right to know is not the driving force in selecting public servants for this branch of government. The Register could help increase transparency in government by simply asking the right questions.

When you want to ask the "right" questions, definitely send a college boy with a double-major of journalism and German to the front lines, just as long as he has a minor in Political Science.