Recently, a contingent of the Wyoming legal community wrote to our federal delegation expressing concern over “growing” threats to the judiciary. These threats should be of serious concern to all of us.
However, by selectively ignoring any foul beyond those listed, no mention of any wrong except those alleged to have been committed by the current administration, the transparent tenor of that letter was incongruent with the suggested goal: to thwart “discredit” of the institution.
This selective explication appears to tinge the argument with a partisan hue. Lost opportunity cost is a real thing, and the stance as delivered would leave a sizeable tally on any reasonable person’s balance sheets.
In support, they cited “election fraud disinformation” after the 2020 election and “attacks on judges” who have ruled against DOGE. Elon Musk is blamed, as are Karoline Leavitt, Republican members of Congress and President Trump’s executive orders.
The basis provided in support of that proffer — that threats to the judiciary and erosion of the public’s faith therein are suddenly increasing — was entirely devoid of any baseline for comparison, or any examples of substantially similar misfeasance from any but the current administration. The omission corrodes the overarching message of protecting an impartial judiciary and public faith therein.
What motive here to remain silent respecting the significant, high-profile threats to the judiciary in recent history conducted by “astroturf” groups that followed SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022?
Conservative justices and their families were under siege by violent and armed protestors at their homes. Many then-politicians and administration members seized, embraced and employed their bully pulpit to fan those flames of violence against the justices.
Also, nary a nod to any campaign funds being spent on a fake Russian dossier; that dossier then used to support FISA wiretap warrants on the opposing party’s presidential nominee, during high campaign season nonetheless. The same fake bought-and-paid-for “evidence” paraded around for the next three-plus years. That orchestrated campaign played a significant, material role in the erosion of faith in the judiciary, but apparently does not rise to the level of mention.
By omitting any clearly relevant evidence of one political party’s actions while emphasizing and disparaging the other’s, the structure of the letter embodies the very conduct they seek to condemn: politicizing the judiciary, and their own positions. It in practical effect increases the institution’s exposure to political instability, accusations of hypocrisy and concomitant illegitimacy.
As a fourth-generation U.S. Navy veteran, reluctant member of the Wyoming legal community and registered Independent who voted (D) in the last three elections, I would appeal to the intellectual integrity of those authors, just as they called upon our federal delegation to comprehensively inform the public in an objective, unbiased manner respecting our legal system.
To me, it is unclear that we can hope to preserve or restore the integrity of and faith in the judiciary without impartial and honest discourse. What a great opportunity to begin such a conversation, squandered on such transparently partisan rhetoric.
John-Mark Roufs
Jackson, Wyoming
