Wes Barfoot
Leavenworth
To the editor:
Mr. Jeremy Adkison did not like my previous letter to the editor arguing that the current appointment system for judges should be eliminated. The disagreement is fine with me, but his letter is so full of misrepresentations of what I said, and so many factual errors, not to mention rude accusations (read what he has to say about Republicans in general), that I feel that I have to respond because I don’t really like having words or ideas attributed to me that I didn’t express.
So I will try to correct a few things quickly and then others can take over the discussion.
First, the writer accused me of being deceitful in my “response to the previous letters.” Aside from being rude, he got his facts wrong. I didn’t mention “previous letters” and I was not responding to any. He accuses me of this in more than one of his paragraphs.
Second, the writer says that I am “…absolutely incorrect in the role of judges in our society.” Again he got it wrong. How does he know what I think on the subject? He doesn’t because I didn’t say a word about the role of judges in our society.
Third, he pretty clearly implies that I wish to turn the judiciary into “another form of a legislature.” I don’t even know what that means and I doubt if Adkison does either. Sounds good as an accusation though and I guess that was why he said it.
And finally, the writer pretty strongly implies by association that I am a part of some conspiratorial group of Republicans who are out to subvert the judiciary. Once again he is completely wrong. It may surprise him but I’m not a Republican.
I am also not part of any organized group trying to do anything. I just wrote a letter expressing my opinion. And, like almost everything else he wrote, he got it wrong about the people who really are in a group advocating judicial elections – the group is actually composed of Republicans and Democrats, and probably Independents.
I stand by my original contention in my original letter – the only argument I have seen against electing the judiciary is that they will sell their decisions in cases before them to the highest bidder in their election efforts. And in that view not only are the judges corrupt and just waiting to sell their office, but it follows that the lawyers must also be corrupt and willing to bribe judges.
What a depressing belief. Where do people get this stuff?
