 Todd DormanTodd Dorman is a columnist for The Gazette. His blog has been bringing smiles to readers' faces since November 2007. |
|
Email the author
On the bus, but out of context
A variation of the above image from the No Wiggins website was slapped big and bold on the “No Wiggins” bus that was tooling around our fair state this past week. It’s also front-and-center on the group’s brochures and literature.
Quite a damning quote. But where did it come from?
Well, it was pulled from last year’s public interviews between the Judicial Nominating Commission, chaired by Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins, and applicants for three vacant seats on the state’s highest court. The seats needed filling after 2010’s retention vote ousted a trio of justices who joined a unanimous decision in 2009 striking down Iowa’s ban on same-sex marriages. Wiggins also joined that decision, and now he’s a target for ouster in November.
Wiggins was interviewing University of Iowa law Professor Angela Onwuachi-Willig. The quote comes from the first question Wiggins asks. Here’s a link to the full video. And here’s my transcript of the exchange at issue:
Wiggins: “Professor, I need to ask this question.”
Onwauchi-Willig: “Of course.”
Wiggins: “And you know what that question is.”
Onwauchi-Willig: “I know what the question is.”
Wiggins: “You’re not licensed to practice law in the state of Iowa. And the Iowa Constitution requires that you practice law, to be a member of the Iowa Bar. Um, and I know we’ve talked about you trying to get licensed before this, but I don’t know if it’s going to happen. And our charge is to send people who meet the qualifications, either by age or by license to the governor. We have to send nine people. If we send you, without a license, we’re really sending eight people. So tell me, in your best way, how we can get around the Iowa Constitution and do that.”
Onwauchi-Willig: (laughing) “Well, if I were making the argument, the Iowa Constitution I think requires that I must be a member of the Iowa Bar before I become appointed. And I am confident that that would happen, that this would come through before I’m appointed. I can tell you it’s a two-step process. It goes to the National Conference of Bar Examiners first and then it comes here from which I understand it can get very quickly processed here. The National Conference of Bar Examiners, everything is in except for my criminal history check and I actually think Iowa is what is missing. I don’t have a record. It should come back quickly. And once they have all that information they can send it Dave York (?) can see it the very next day. I’m confident, I’m fairly confident, that it will happen in a timely fashion. And hopeful, very hopeful, that it will happen before you begin your deliberations.”
Wiggins: “And if it does, I’ll be glad to swear you in.”
Watching the interview, I think it’s clear that Wiggins was being mildly sarcastic about the significant hole in her qualifications. If you’ve ever listened to oral arguments, it also sounds a lot like a kind of probative question a justice would ask a lawyer.
Maybe you like a smart ass, and maybe you don’t. But the notion that Wiggins is really, genuinely looking for a way to circumvent the state constitution, as implied by those who slapped it onto the side of a campaign bus, is ridiculous. Activist judges? More like activist editing.
Incidentally, two days after this exchange, Onwauchi-Willig was admitted to the Iowa bar. The day after that, she was named as one of the nine nominees forwarded to Gov. Terry Branstad. The Grinnell College and University of Michigan law graduate previously practiced law in Cleveland and Boston before joining the faculty at the University of California Davis in 2003. She came to Iowa City in 2006.
I understand that pulling statements out of context is hardly unusual, especially now. But to make a distorted quote the rhetorical and visual centerpiece of your campaign is remarkable, even in our post-truth era. The No Wiggins forces are basically saying facts, schmacts, all that matters are anger and winning. Makes sense, since that’s the sort of court system they want.
It’s also lazy. Wiggins has written dozens of majority opinions and dissents. And yet, instead of finding something substantiative and accurate, his critics go with an easy falsehood.
And actually, Wiggins does have a real Onwauchi-Willig problem. The nominating commission he chaired made her the lone female nominee, even though a dozen well-qualified women applied. And our conservative governor declined to put a liberal law professor on the state’s high court. Didn’t see that coming. Now there is no woman on the court for the first time in 25 years, and Wiggins bears some of the responsibility.
I’m not suggesting Onwauchi-Willig isn’t accomplished and qualified. She clearly is. But sending Branstad nine men and one woman who had no chance of being appointed was a blunder. But that won’t fit on a bus or brochure, nor would it whip up the grand order of perpetual outrage. So it’s “activist judges!” again, with feeling.
So Wiggins has baggage. And his opponents are driving around in a big red distortion.
-u20042.png?1366232523)
That this quote would appear on the side of a bus and be used totally out of context tells us more about the “No” campaign than Wiggins.
Not only do we have politics infecting our courts, we have ugly and dirty politics infecting out courts.
Oh look: the Family Leader is engaged in ham-fisted dishonesty. What a surprise.
At what point are conservatives going to figure out that 1) the rest of us are not stupid, 2) the rest of us know how to do a google search of quotes, and 3) we all know the story of the little boy who cried wolf.
I am just so sick of tracking down stuff put out by conservatives only to discover that’s it’s misleading, a lie, never happened, a distortion, misquoted, lunatic fringe source that I could just scream.
Do these people understand exactly how irresponsible they are being when they do this
Very enlightning, Leftist are great at hearing dog whistles of racism. (Words that are spoken and written that aren’t racist, but leftist claim are). Now we have this, a leftist judges that plainly asks, ‘How do I get around the constitution?’ Words that are plainly spoken, but dont have the simple meaning the words convey. Also, passing the bar, and practicing law are two different things. Unless you’re a leftist. Just ask Elizabeth Warren. She practiced law in Mass. and never passed the Mass. Bar. But of course rules are for other people.
The larger question in this case is, Exactly what placed Onwauchi-Willig, above hundreds of other lawyers and judges in the state that where more qualified than Onwauchi-Willing? Exactly what is it about this person that elevated her name to one of the very best qualified(?) candidates for the Iowa Supreme Court? A person that has NEVER adjudicated a single case, nor, admittedly, ever “practiced law”?
I find Bill’s post quite enlightening. The issue here is that an organization took something that Justice Wiggins said completely out of context and used it to make a false representation about him.
That is not defendable and Bill makes no attempt to directly defend this action. Rather, he goes on a rant about racism, dog whistles, Elizabeth Warren and Onwauchi-Willing. None of these comments are germane to the issue at hand. Does Bill think a baseless rant about racism makes it okay for someone to totally misrepresent Justice Wiggins? Apparently, in his world, it does.
In my world (it’s called “reality”) a false representation is a false representation and taking something out of context is taking something out of context and neither is acceptable.
Here we see a typical conservative discussion tactic- don’t like the direction the dialogue is taking, so pull a “look over there” maneuver.
This discussion isn’t about leftists, or racism, or judicial qualifications. It’s about a borderline hate group’s efforts to twist facts to smear an unelected official.
Beyond that, are you not aware that the Judicial Nominating Commission draws from a list of applicants in order to create its short list of recommended candidates? In other words, there may (or may not be) “hundreds of other lawyers and judges in the state that where more qualified than Onwauchi-Willing” – but if they didn’t apply for the position, they weren’t considered. I’m sure that not everyone who is well-qualified would want to be a supreme court judge, given the rampant ignorance of the population that they would have to serve.
Wow Jack, dont like the message from a group you disagree with and ….. “It’s about a borderline hate group’s efforts to twist facts to smear an unelected official.”
Hate group huh? Now who is taking things out of context? This hate group has the same view as more than 50% people that respound to polls and this hate group has earned the support of voters everytime the question has been asked at the ballot box. This hate group has the same opinion as a federal statute that codifies marriage as between one man and one woman. This hate group aligns itself with the constitutions of 37 other states.
But this is exactly what I expect from those that decry the lack of civility in political discourse, and then label those they disagree with as haters. The reality is, discussion is the last thing you want, you mustly want to shout down divergent views.
I rest my case.
Mr. Dornan,
I’m not shocked that you don’t get it here. This wasn’t “sarcasm” by Judge Wiggins.
Its clear from the video and from the line of questioning he was giving to Prof. Onwauchi-Willig that like his fellow members of the Judicial Nomination Commission–they desperately wanted to put Prof. Onwauchi-Willig’s name on the list to sent to the Governor for the Iowa Supreme Court.
One problem–that pesky Iowa Constitution that requires a person to be a member of the Iowa Bar to be a judge in the State of Iowa.
Just on the basis that Onwauchi-Willig was NOT a member of the Iowa bar, she should have NEVER even been interviewed by the Judicial Nominating Commission in the first place! It doesn’t matter what her academic credentials are–the State Constitution REQUIRES that judges in Iowa be licensed to practice law in the State of Iowa.
It says more about the University of Iowa College of Law that they would hire a law professor–who wasn’t licensed to practice law in Iowa to begin with!
Wiggins asks “how do you propose we get around the Iowa Constitution?” Tell me, why is that EVEN a question? We shouldn’t be seeking ways to “get around” the Iowa Constitution. The fact that a judge even asks that question to begin with–is someone who shouldn’t be on the Iowa Supreme Court.
Let’s also keep in mind that Wiggins is not held in high regard by lawyers in the state of Iowa. Wiggins only received a 63% approval rating from lawyers submitting reviews to the Iowa State Bar Association. Essentially–a grade of D by fellow Iowa laywers. Is that someone that we want on the Iowa Supreme Court?
Mr Johnson,
I have a feelling that you haven’t spent much time listening to lawyers figuring out how to settle legal problems.
Justice Wiggins was not trying to scam the Iowa Constitution. He was trying to solve a problem and he wanted to find out how Onwauchi-Willig would answer the question.
If you really think any justice would be stupid enough to talk about how to pull a highly illegal fast one during videotaped public interviews between the Judicial Nominating Commission and applicants, then I can only assume that you believe that “Supernatural” is a reality show
This wasn’t a “legal problem”, Ms. Bell. That is what you’re failing to grasp.
Prof. Onwauchi-Willig was NOT qualified to be a judge in the State of Iowa–PERIOD. She should have never received an interview before the Judicial Nomination Commission at that time. When she was interviewed–she was NOT a member of the Iowa Bar, nor was she when she applied for the Iowa Supreme Court position.
Yet, here was Judge Wiggins–trying to get Prof. Onwauchi-Willig to tell him how they could do an end around the Iowa Constitution so that they could put her on the list sent to the Governor.
Quite frankly, its also disturbing to me that Judge Wiggins would be eager to try to get someone on to the Iowa Supreme Court who had never served as a judge or even worked as an attorney in the State of Iowa.
Neither did Earl Warren,
Your point?
Or am I to take the opinion of someone who does not appear to me to be qualified to speak on this issue—do you have a law degree? are you a member of the Iowa bar? have you ever worked as an attorney anywhere? have you ever taught law or have you ever been recognized as a legal scholar?—as the final word on the subject.
No?
Then I guess we are done
“Neither did Earl Warren”
Earl Warren didn’t apply for the supreme court of Iowa. Where the constitution states Be a member of the bar and practice in the state. Earl Warren was a SCOTUS judge. Where he met all the constitutional requirements. The good professor possessed no desirable qualities nor met constitutional requirement. So Judge Wiggins question still stands ‘how do we get around the constitution?’
Just like Elizabeth Warren, rules dont apply to the liberal elite in general,those in academia specifically.
Mr Williamson, I guess both you and Mr Johnson didn’t bother to read the rest of the transcript.
“Onwauchi-Willig: ‘. . . if I were making the argument, the Iowa Constitution I think requires that I must be a member of the Iowa Bar before I become appointed. And I am confident that that would happen, . . . before you begin your deliberations.”
Wiggins: ‘And if it does, I’ll be glad to swear you in.’”
The Iowa Constitution does not require that a person be a member of the Iowa Bar to be considered. It requires that the person be a member of the Iowa Bar at time of appointment.
Onwauchi-Willig has a law degree from the University of Michigan, clerked for the Honorable Solomon Oliver, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, and the Honorable Karen Nelson Moore, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit Court, and worked for Jones Day in Cleveland, Ohio, and Foley Hoag in Boston, Massachusetts. She is currently a member of the faculty for the Boyd College of Law, University of Iowa and a member of the Iowa Bar. Just what is it about her that fits your description of “no desirable qualities”.
Desirable qualities like actually practicing law in the state you want to set on the supreme court.
The qualifications are there to assure the people that a judge has the experience to adjudicate matters in the state of Iowa. For leftist that demand diversity on the court, race, gender, sexual preference………the idea that a person that sets on the Iowa Supreme court understand Iowa, is the reason for the qualifications.
As we see here, qualifications are for other people.
But Wiggins question is good training for a liberal judge. How do we get around the constitution?
Ms. Bell,
You can use all the straw man arguments you like. It still does not change the fact that when Prof Onwauchi-Willig applied for the Iowa Supreme Court position–she was NOT a member of the Iowa Bar–as REQUIRED by Iowa law for a person to be a judge in Iowa.
The Judicial Nomination Commission should have rejected her application from the beginning and not granted her an interview for that very reason–she did not meet the basic standard laid out by Iowa law–that being a member of the Iowa bar.
However, the most glaring hole in Prof. Onwauchi-Willig’s resume was that of experience. Yes, she had an impressive resume of academic credentials and time spent clerking for various judges.
However, that does not equal experience on the bench APPLYING the law in court cases.
The judges that sit on the Iowa Supreme Court should be jurists with extensive trial experience and a record that allows for the Judicial Nomination Commission to determine the individual’s judicial temperament.
In Prof. Onwauchi-Willig’s case–she had zero experience on the bench, she had no record of judicial temperament to review, and had never served as a judge at any level.
In watching the video of Judge Wiggins interviewing Prof. Onwauchi-Willig–its extremely clear to see that he wanted desperately to find a way to get her nominated for the Iowa Supreme Court, hence the question of “how do we get around the Iowa Constitution”.
A judge should NEVER seek “a way around” our state Constitution. The very nature of the job they hold is to FOLLOW the Constitution to the letter.
Todd why do you keep avoiding the real election? Wiggins and same-sex marriage are not what this election is about – its about the economy. Why don’t you write about your new normal?
- Doubling the price of gasoline
- Increasing unemployment. Did you know that so many people have left the job market that real unemployment is greater than 11% today? Your buddy keeps talking about creating jobs but never mentions he kills more jobs than he creats every month.
- Federal deficits. President Obama would have you believe that taxing the 1% will pay for his spending when the fact is his but even if his tax changes were approved would see trillion dollar deficits for a decade. Your children are going to have to bail you out.
- We’ve seen in the past two weeks the national security policy bungling in the Middle East of this President showing his inadequate preparation to be President.
And most important, the Hope and Change is GONE!!! President Obama is the most mean spirited politicians we’ve seen in a century.
So why are you writing about Wiggins – just a distraction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh I don’t know Mr Ellis, maybe the economy et al is the real distraction and we’re about to be invaded by reptiles from outer space in rubber human suits
No matter what the topic, you attempt to launch into a bashing of the President with unfounded accusations. You are completely off topic (again).
I’m not off topic Dorman and the Gazette are smoozing Obama by ignoring real election issues and talking about topics they believe energize Democrats.
Name one “unfounded accusation” Richie.You haven’t because you cannot. Neither you, the Gazette or the Democrats want to discuss real issues in any depth because none of them favor the Democrats. The US is in serious trouble and heading in the wrong direction. Wiggins is an example of mediocrity – vote him out.
You want to change the Iowa Constitution, then fine. First, you need to lobby your elected state officials to vote for an amendment. That would put them on the record of representing your wishes (do enough elected officials have the guts to alienate a large demographic group, I doubt it). Then, the next legislative session do it again. Then an amendment can be voted on by the citizens of Iowa. Elected state officials have that power, not the judges. That is why this whole smear campaign is pathetic, it won’t change anything.
I think a lot of Iowa voters learned that last time when despite ousting judges, the Iowa Constitution did not change. Maybe they felt moral superiority, but again, the Iowa Constitution did not change.
Kudos to Todd for not being afraid of differing opinions and perhaps the opportunity to learn from others, because there are always more than one perspective to any story.
Just a thought- irresponsible though it may be…
There are four ISC judges up for retention vote this election: Waterman, Mansfield, Zager, and Wiggins. Except for Wiggins, the other three are the “replacements” appointed in 2011 by Branstad.
Suppose that a significant number of people got it in their heads to retain Wiggins and reject the other three? And what if they did it repeatedly, every election cycle, for the only objective of washing out Branstad appointees? After all, if they were hand-picked by Terry, they must be defective, right- insofar as he had selected the majority of justices who participated in the unanimous ruling that shot down the IDOMA.
I’ll start the ball rolling…