Picture the playground scene: the Brutes pummeling the Mutes. The crowd accordions in on victim and tormentor. The dunce from down the street — you know the one, that kid who’s always frothing about something he heard someone say about nothing which kinda, coulda, shoulda sounded true — he steps in when the Brute tires. He continues thrashing the silent one, egged on by a gallery of the unreasoned.
Opinion
It is the ugliest of matches. Uncomfortable and frankly, a little bush league given the sterling institution the Brutes lead. They are the ones in whom the population placed its trust, the ones who took an oath to abide by the rules and to respect the Mutes as equals, each complementing one another, holding each other accountable. Except the Mute in this story returns no punches, instead quietly absorbing the blows, first on the right cheek, then offering the left. Not in surrender, mind you, but in honor of the oath the entire playground leadership took.
I imagine this must be what the judiciary feels like. Under a wave of unfavorable rulings against the Trump administration, it is now de rigueur for our GOP leaders (spoiler alert: the Brutes) to pile it on, accusing courts of bias, calling for impeachment for every decision they decide is unacceptable. Once the fiercest protectors of the judiciary, the executive and legislative branches have now become its greatest threat. Have they forgotten the promise of this great country?
Earlier this month, a consort of Wyoming retired judges and attorneys (myself included) sent a letter to its congressional delegation with a simple request: knock it off. Attacking the judiciary (you guessed it, the Mutes) is unseemly, and erodes the public’s confidence in the judiciary.
Judges cannot defend themselves against attack. Ever mindful of the appearance of impropriety, they willingly silence their tongues in service of fairness and impartiality. It is a dramatic and necessary step jurists voluntarily accept, often at great personal cost, in order to render decisions that are deaf to external pressures and mute to politics.
Judges are the grownups in the room. Those on the bench remind us we are not masters of our universe, that we cannot pick and choose the rules that suit our needs. The judiciary smacks us down, giving us a dose of reality, ordering us to own up to our obligations. By invitation, it steps into the self-inflicted messes we make and brings clarity to our problems. It holds us to account.
A reasoned society invites neither thugs nor activists to its ranks. Indeed, skulduggery has no place on the bench. That’s why we should not elect judges. This past session, there was proposed legislation for a constitutional amendment providing for the election of all justices and judges in Wyoming.
It’s a terrible idea, an antidote to problems that do not exist in our state. If we are truly worried about radical leftist agenda-driven judges, the worst thing we could do is monetize a seat on the bench. By politicizing the judiciary, only the richest, most connected among us win. Consider the recent election for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. It is the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history with spending reaching $100 million, thanks in large part to a couple of billionaires: Elon Musk and George Soros. Judges are not politicians. They are judges. We do not want them busking for campaign donations, forever yoked to donors.
Are there bad judges? No question. But the way to get rid of them is not to inflame the electorate with evidence-free claims and make threats to judges’ personal safety. There are mechanisms already in place to weed out rogues from within, committees composed of citizens, judges and attorneys — those who stand to lose the most when a member of the judiciary violates its code of conduct. Additionally, all judges stand for retention during the general election cycle according to the bench on which they serve. Would you rather have a judge beholden to out-of-state billionaires or appoint judges who answer to the electorate at large? Take your pick.
For the two-thirds of our delegation who hold a law degree, they should know better than to make inflammatory statements about the integrity or qualifications of a judge. I direct their attention to Rule 8.2 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits lawyers from knowingly or recklessly making false statements about the integrity or qualification of a judge. Tread lightly, Congresswomen.
An unfavorable ruling against your cause may not be borne of bias. It’s likely just an unfavorable ruling, neither corrupt nor an abuse of power. Contrary to the rhetoric from our political leaders, a judge cannot be impeached simply because we do not agree with a decision. Impeachment requires a showing of high crimes, misdemeanors or malfeasance in office. Make the case under this criteria, then the discussion turns substantive. Thankfully.
If we are so worried about upholding the Constitution, should we not support those quiet, unelected souls who take an oath to support it?
Oh, that we should all drop to our knees and thank the high holy heavens for that beleaguered third branch, that noble oak which now is the life blood for its septic branches. Before we consider proposing legislation for the election of judges, provide concrete examples of bias from the bench. Reveal the radicals in our midst. And when you root out sub-standard jurists, we’ll help you vote the bum out.
We’ll be waiting.
In the meantime, suck it up, take your lumps, be honorable in defeat and start following the law like the rest of us commoners. Be a model of integrity and respect for the Rule of Law. Please.
Ms. Stubson hit the nail on the head by exposing the cowardice of members of the Executive and Legislative branches. Wyoming legislators, beholden to the Washington DC “Freedom” Caucus, not Wyoming voters, are undermining our state with outrageous bills to deny voting rights, health care, veterans benefits etc., signed off by the governor, then leaving the mess to judges and courts to clean up.
Our congressional delegation won’t speak out against violations of due process when people are snatched off the street and flown out of the country. If they’re so terrified of criminals loose on the streets, why didn’t they protest when sexual predators under the “sovereign control” of Romania arrived in America, courtesy of the Executive branch? They’ll fight the Legislative branch to return the father of a disabled child for a hearing under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection of the law clause, then welcome human traffickers with open arms? There’s a large group of those who can help the “Mutes.” They’re called Voters, and their voices are getting louder and louder.
I do agree with Susan Stubson. The executive and legislative branches SHOULD NOT seek dominance (brutes) behavior.
Of course brutes worldwide want to dominate and as long as history the mutes are pummeled. Hence a history of rebellions forever ongoing.
Enter lawyers. Deciphering law forever and ever. Is this law really what it means? Do people have the right to own and wield guns against the brutes? Do other animals in the kingdom have the right to have fangs, poison, claws, horns and on and on? Is public land really public land? Did the Exon Valdez have a liability to the livelihoods of Alaska? The liability of the environment? Which ended spending citizens millions on cleanup. The JUDGEMENT of Exxon was 20 plus years. Why are these examples continuing. Profits by lawyers, law firms slicing and dicing are grotesque. Still no rule of law. Perhaps rule of law can be ambiguous? Ongoing. Moderation and censoring.
Egged on by the unreasoned? Who do you suppose they represent? These holier than thou writings are enough reason for many to not only turn a blind eye to the problems you see, but to encourage them.
OK, someone enlighten me: with all the apparently criminal/unconstitutional actions perpetrated by the Trump/Musk regime, why has no one been indicted and sent to jail? If any of the rest of us peons broke into a government building, stole secret documents & confidential information, doxed intelligence officers, revealed explicit war plans etc. etc. etc., we’d be wearing an orange jumpsuit.
Well said, my friend.
Thanks Susan, I very much agree with your admonition “Tread lightly Congresswomen”.
Excellent commentary on the roles a relationship of the judiciary to democracy in our country. The judicial process, though somewhat cumbersome, is as fair as any in the world. At least in our system, for all it’s faults, allows the common man to take on the oligarchs and the government on a level playing field
Thank you. I hope it is widely read and understood.
I definitely believe in the rule of law, and the politicians need to back off or be thrown in jail. What I see is a country that is fallen into corruption- starting with Trump, his acolytes, and the Supreme Court. I do disagree with Miss Stubson on one issue: Members of the Supreme Court should be voted into office. What we have now is skulduggery, and corruption at the very top.
I won’t argue with someone who is right, but stop and think about this; after the last election, are you sure the voters are smart enough to vote for a judge?
I agree, if we’re going to elect judges, then let them run on a non partisan ticket. In reality, that’s what they are supposed to be: individuals providing impartial interpretation of the law.
Thanks, Susan.
I especially espouse Wyoming’s system of judicial appointments with periodic retention elections. You are the adult in the room.