When it comes to our federal and state judicial branches, independence does not mean above reproach. We citizens have every right to be critical of decision made by judges and justices; especially when we have to live with or, even sometimes, die by the consequences of those decisions.
A recent letter to the editor by former presidents of the Wyoming Bar Association claimed that they believe our God-given 1st amendment right of free speech does not apply when criticizing our fellow citizen judges who make rulings on the constitutionality of statutes passed by our legislature and signed by our Governor.
These bar association leaders even claimed that we have no right to offer changes as to how the selection of judges and justices should be handled.
Even our Chief Justice of the Wyoming Supreme Court indicated in her speech before the legislature that the courts are immune from criticism or reform.
It is apparent that Wyoming lawyers who have served as bar association presidents and those who sit on our judicial benches, need to take a refresher course on our United States and Wyoming Constitutions specific to the provisions of the rights of free speech and redress of grievances.
We have the right to be critical of our state’s Supreme Court when they overturn our pro-life laws and when they create an absurd definition of healthcare to include the intentional murder of pre-born human persons; something they did to justify overriding the equal protection clause of Article I, Section 2 of our Wyoming Constitution.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s definition of healthcare reads as follows: “Efforts made to maintain, restore, or promote someone’s physical, mental, or emotional well-being.” Where does that definition include aborting children?
It is clear that reforms are needed in our state’s judicial selection process. Maybe then those who decide cases will only look to the text of the laws in making their decisions and not create language that does not exist in those laws and no longer legislate from the bench.
~ Ross
