Opinion: Iowa's judges seize unlawful power, again, now to take the right to life

A disagreeable ruling is not enough reason to remove a judge from office.

It takes committing "malfeasance or misdemeanor," the Iowa Constitution says.

Which is exactly what three justices of the Iowa Supreme Court have done … again.

In the historic retention vote of 2010, Iowans sent a clear message to the judicial branch about our state’s proper separation of powers by unseating three Iowa Supreme Court justices who overstepped their constitutional authority.

Thirteen years later, it appears the Court needs a reminder.

For in their June 16 opinion on Iowa’s fetal heartbeat law, three Iowa Supreme Court justices again went way outside their judicial parameters to reach a ruling that reflects their politics and their desired conclusion, instead of ruling on the basis of law.

The irony this time is that activists and elected officials were not the first to call out these justices’ judicial activism … it was their own peers on the Supreme Court.

In an opinion of his own, Supreme Court Justice Christopher McDonald blasted his colleagues for their "results-oriented approach to deciding cases," for “failing to understand the nature of the legislative power” and instead setting themselves up as a “super general assembly.”

Another view: Editorial: Blaming judges is no way to resolve Iowa's abortion debate

McDonald further concluded, "My colleagues' desire to hold this law unconstitutional without any written explanation rebuffs the very constitutional order every judicial officer swears to uphold and defend."

This alone should outrage all Iowans. Time and again during the historic 2010 ouster of three Supreme Court justices, I and others warned that while the controversial ruling then was on marriage, the real issue was much broader. It was about every Iowan’s freedom. For if unelected judges rule as supreme legislators on marriage, they won’t blink an eye to wield the same unconstitutional power on property rights, speech rights, gun rights, parental rights … and now on the right to life itself.

When justices go outside their sworn oath, seize unconstitutional power, and threaten our freedoms, they must be held accountable. Full stop. Period. This is why I tweeted after their June 16 ruling that these three justices should resign, be impeached, or be ousted.

McDonald further called out his three peers for their nonsensical assertion that the fetal heartbeat bill was only a “hypothetical law.” Every Iowan, conservative or liberal or somewhere in-between, should be aghast at this invented absurdity. The fetal heartbeat bill passed both chambers of the Legislature and was signed by the governor to take full effect. There was nothing hypothetical about it.

Fellow Supreme Court Justice Matthew McDermott wrote his own rebuke of the three justices, declaring they "peddle in speculation about what the legislative and executive branches were thinking when they enacted the heartbeat law. … So instead of analyzing the law as a law, they offer conjecture about the intentions of the elected representatives that passed the law."

If the justices are intent on playing psychologist, they should resign and become psychologists. If they want to legislate, rather than judge, let them remove themselves (or be removed) and run for legislative office. Either way, they should not hold the distinguished office of Supreme Court justice.

As McDonald concluded with resounding clarity, the ruling of his three rogue colleagues “curtails the legislative power, enlarges the judicial power, imbalances the constitutional separation of powers, (and) misunderstands the legal effect of a court's constitutional judgment.”

In other words, by inflating their own power and ignoring their constitutional bounds, they performed an unjustified act contrary to law — the very definition of “malfeasance” at Dictionary.com. Thus, they should be held to account, regardless of whether one likes the outcome of their decision or not.

When asked where we go from here, I recommend the following: First, it is paramount that Gov. Kim Reynolds call a special session to pass, at minimum, the same fetal heartbeat legislation. This revisited legislation will rebuff the silly “hypothetical law” arguments made by the activist justices and make abundantly clear our legislative and executive branches’ intent.

The law might then be appealed, even back to the Iowa Supreme Court. But should these three justices double down and continue to play “super general assembly,” the Legislature has no choice but to impeach. Our legislative and executive branches have a constitutional duty to hold the judicial branch in check and balance.

Iowans, after all, have fought and died for our form of representative government, not a judicial oligarchy that seizes the power of the other branches for itself.

Iowa is a state of “We the People,” governed by our elected leaders — and regardless of whether we like a court’s ruling or not, neither We the People nor our elected leaders should ever surrender our government to unelected judges who have gotten too big for their britches.

Bob Vander Plaats is president and CEO of The Family Leader, an Iowa-based Christian ministry that encourages Christians to engage with government.

This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Opinion: Iowa's judges seize unlawful power in abortion case