Guest columnist Susan Stubson writes:
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.
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 one another 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?
Last week a consort of Wyoming retired judges and attorneys (myself included) sent a letter to the state’s 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 silence their tongues in service of fairness and impartiality. It is a dramatic and necessary step jurists accept, often at great personal cost, to render decisions which 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 which 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.
It’s a terrible idea, an antidote to problems which 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 election for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court this week. It is the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history with total spending of $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 comprised of citizens, judges and attorneys, those who stand to lose the most when one of 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 the judge's 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.
Susan Stubson is a sixth-generation Wyomingite and attorney who frequently writes about faith, politics, and issues facing the American West.
