There is an appointed time for everything,
and a time for everything under the heavens…
a time to tear down and a time to build…
A time to be silent, and a time to speak….
Ecclesiastes 3: 1-8
With respect to lawyers and civic discourse, I submit it is time to build our society, not tear it down; to speak in measured and thoughtful ways; to reason and persuade rather than harangue and cajole.
What better group to lead by example in these ways than those trained in the law? Critical thinkers and logicians, most are well equipped to provide civic, dispassionate counsel. It’s needed.
There has been an abundance of discourtesy, insult, accusation and projection regarding the current administration. If I’m reading the mood of our country correctly, the appointed time for that is over, if it ever existed.
Last week, a group of my former colleagues, “over 100 lawyers and retired judges," signed (3200 members of the Wyoming Bar didn’t sign) and hand delivered a letter to our congressional delegation. Simultaneously, copies were sent to Wyoming media outlets.
The letter alleged threats to “judges, judicial independence, and Rule of Law” by the Trump Administration and those who support it.
This group surfaced during the 2022 election with another open letter distributed to the Wyoming press shortly before the election.
It took Rep. Hageman to task for comments made at campaign rallies regarding the fairness of the 2020 election. That letter intimated that she had violated her oath as a lawyer and ethical standards, because she questioned the election results.
The group’s latest letter takes Sens Barrasso and Lummis, and Rep Hageman to task for allegedly violating their oaths, this time as federal officials. Oaths seem to be a convenient hook upon which to hang supposed transgressors.
Of the “100 lawyers and retired judges” who signed the letter, I count 35 of them as friends and acquaintances, some who are close friends.
Over my 50 years of practice, I also had the pleasure (mostly) of appearing before many of the trial and appellate judges who signed the letter. For those reasons, I don’t relish being the skunk at their garden party.
I know these 35 and have no reason to doubt their sincerity and passion for the law, though I wish they would have pondered a little more.
My criticism is not with the signers of the letter, but with those who conceived and drafted it and strategized its presentation. I don’t know who they are, but they have done a disservice to their cause.
They could have elevated the discussion and used it as an opportunity to teach an important civics lesson: the necessity of the rule of law in our constitutional system of government.
But, they didn’t.
Along with their criticisms (some of which are justified), they could have drafted a letter explaining the rule of law and advocating for it in a non-partisan way; a way that would have allowed all of us trained in the law to lend support. But they didn’t.
After the banner headline, “The Rule of Law Matter" the letter disappoints. In tone and substance, it is a political screed that assigns blame, but not to all who are guilty of intemperate remarks. Progressives get a pass.
The drafters stand mute on the diatribe of Majority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer threatening two Supreme Court Justices by name on the steps of the United States Supreme Court:
“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” Schumer shouted. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions!”.
Were Schumer’s threats, “designed to cow the judges” as mentioned in the letter? Were his remarks consistent with respect for the rule of law?
Chief Justice Roberts labeled them, “dangerous."
Roberts was probably thinking of other recent assassination attempts; of congressional Republicans on a practice field; of the stalking of Justice Kavanaugh by a would-be assassin; by the two attempts to assassinate candidate Trump.
The drafters complain about threatened impeachment of district judges who have issued nation-wide injunctions.
The drafters don’t mention that there are currently multiple articles of impeachment, filed by multiple Democrat members of the House, aimed at two conservative justices, Thomas and Alito.
Are we to believe that impeachment of district judges is a threat to the rule of law, while impeachment of Supreme Court Justices is not?
The drafters are silent too on the proposed legislation introduced by three Democrat Senators and four Democrat House Members to add justices to the Supreme Court, a practice sometimes referred to as, “packing the court," last attempted by FDR in 1937. Might “packing the court” undermine the rule of law?
Not a word from the drafters about President Biden ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court in the student loan cancellation case. Did Biden undermine the rule of law?
I could go on, but I have a word limit for this column.
The point is not that the drafters of the letter were hypocritical, though they are; the point is that the drafters were purposely biased.
Because they were, the letter is not credible and does a disservice to those who would defend the rule of law but without scoring political points.
The drafters had an opportunity to stand above the political fray and appeal to the better instincts of all. By being even-handed, unbiased and non-partisan, they could have performed a valuable service.
Instead, civic discourse continues its downward spiral.
Ray Hunkins, a distinguished alumnus of the University of Wyoming and its College of Law, is retired from the practice of law and from his ranching, farming and livestock businesses. He has been active in Republican politics and was the Republican nominee for Governor of Wyoming in 2006
