Byron Maduska
Leavenworth
To the editor:
Our U.S. Constitution states all federal judgeships, including Supreme Court Justices, are appointed positions. Appointments are confirmed or denied by vote of elected representatives in the U.S. Senate. The founders quite intentionally kept judgeships sacred from elective processes. The Kansas system closely mirrors their wishes.
Kansas judges aren't immune from removal by the people. After appointment and confirmation we have periodic opportunities to un-elect them. We can fire them at the ballot box.
The notion the judiciary isn't different from other public representatives is ludicrous. The founders clearly intended our judiciary to be one of the checks and balances of elected government, not part of it.
Our judiciary shouldn't be comprised of elected partisans, it should monitor them.
Our founders clearly intended judgeships, and those seeking them, should be immune from character assassinations and other foul tactics in elections that leave nominees sullied. No one wrestles in a sewer and comes out clean and pleasantly odiferous. We shouldn't choose judges according to who we believe the fewest slanders about. The best candidates won't even run.
Electing judges won't solve problems, but will mire our judgeships in political filth. Those feeling judges are failing should look to the real problems, those we elect to appoint and confirm them, and make our laws.
Many of our elections are little more than excreta slinging contests, a detestable stench. Subjecting our judgeships to that, and those seeking them, is an abysmal mistake to avoid. It isn't necessary, nor prudent.
There's no perfect system for selecting judges, but our present Kansas system works quite well, respects our founders wishes, and should be maintained.
