Jeremy Adkison
Leavenworth
To the editor:
Wes Barfoot’s July 26 letter to the editor was not only disingenuous in terms of what it was seeking to repudiate but it was downright deceitful in its response to the previous letters.
He writes that the only argument against electing judges he saw via the letters in the Times was the unquestionable conflict of attorney contributions to the campaigns of the “impartial” judges they have to argue cases in front of. Had he given more than a cursory glance to the past letters that he disagreed with he probably would have had a far more educated and all around better response.
The push in Leavenworth County to elect judges is spearheaded by the Leavenworth County Republican party – notably by members of the Woman’s Committee. Readers.
Do you genuinely believe that these people want fair and impartial judges? If you ever met anyone from the county Republican party, or their women’s committee for that matter, you would probably say no. The entire purpose of a sole political party pushing to be able to elect judges is deliberately based on the desire of the members to vote for judges whose judicial philosophy agrees with their view of governance.
Furthermore, Mr. Barfoot’s letter is absolutely incorrect in the role of judges in our society. We have an elected legislature to enact laws and administer government.
We have an elected executive to direct agencies and the day to day operations of the state/federal government. Those are the branches that citizens vote on and often times change.
The constitution and enforcement of law should never be administered on the backs of political or personal ideology. The judiciary in our country has never been meant to be, since the foundation of our nation, another form of a legislature. Anyone who says otherwise is constructing an artificial reality to serve their personal world view.
The county Republican party wants judges who are lockstep with them on the issue of abortion, same-gender marriage rights, and most certainly any issue involving religion. Judges are not suppose to be lockstep, though. They are suppose to be independent arbitrators, people who will wade through the mandated text of our laws or state and federal constitution in such a manner as to come to a decision that enforces that language.
Mr. Barfoot and the Republican party of Leavenworth want to vote for politicians – and if that’s their idea of a judge they have redefined the job.
Readers, keep them elected, keep them professional, and keep them independent.
Don’t involve them into the mess that is our elective politics. Judges are to be far, far above that.
