Wisconsin
Lawyer
Vol. 81, No. 7, July
2008
Letters
Letters to the
editor: The Wisconsin Lawyer publishes as many letters in each
issue as space permits. Please limit letters to 500 words; letters may
be edited for length and clarity. Letters should address the issues, and
not be a personal attack on others. Letters endorsing political
candidates cannot be accepted. Please mail letters to " Letters to the
Editor," Wisconsin Lawyer, P.O. Box 7158, Madison, WI 53707-7158, fax
them to (608) 257-4343, or
email them
.
Why is it that when lawyers or politicians dislike the
outcome of an event, they
endeavor to develop ways to deprive others of their say for future like
events? Human
nature? Perhaps; no one, especially lawyers or politicians, likes to
lose. After all, winning
is how many lawyers and all politicians make a living. Looking
out for the social good?
Not likely, because there are as many definitions of
social good as there are political parties and special interest
groups. All will tell you, however, that their flavor of
social good is best. So why?
According to Mr. Basting in his May 2008 column, we lawyers
should be "courageous"
and "stand up for fair and impartial courts" because it is
lawyers' "obligation (and
privilege) in a free society to do so." He is, presumably,
trying to move us to support
a merit selection system for appellate judges and supreme court
justices, which would
remove our right to vote for these positions. He phrases in terms of
"social good" what
in fact is probably more related to the desire to win. In fairness, he
is not alone in
promoting the merit selection concept. Indeed, some states use it to
different
degrees, while other states are abandoning the concept. I disagree
vehemently with the concept
and choose to stand up for fair and impartial courts by continuing to
support the
concept, well known in our free society, of voter rights. Who in the
heck are lawyers to
think they are any smarter in selecting a judge than other voters!
Who in the heck are they
to think that panels will remain impartial or untainted by special
interest groups?
People who support merit selection boards are really saying voters in
a free
society are not smart enough to cut through the rhetoric of any election
and choose the
best candidate for the job. Given the timing of Mr. Basting's comments,
it is clear he
believes the best person for the job was not elected to the supreme
court. He
apparently holds such beliefs without Justice Gableman
having asked any questions during oral
arguments or written a single decision. Does it occur to him and
other supporters of
merit selection that Justice Gableman may turn out to be the best
candidate? Enough
voters thought so. But that's the part Mr. Basting wants to take away;
the voters. Mr.
Basting obviously assumes that Justice Gableman is not the best
person for the job. As State
Bar president writing in the Wisconsin
Lawyer, Mr. Basting should keep his personal opinion
to himself - even if he forewarns us. Write a letter to the editor like
other lawyers
and face the same space limitations and restrictions against personal
attack.
If we ever get to a point where there is actually a discussion about
merit
selection versus a free society vote, look out for the backlash against
the lawyers for trying
to steal the will of the people. In my opinion, such a backlash would be
richly
deserved. Finally, when I was asked questions about some of the ads and
specifically the one
about the role of a public defender, I strongly advised
the questioner that it
was Justice Butler's responsibility as a lawyer to represent his
client zealously and ethically
and, further, that the ad says nothing about Mr. Butler being brought up
on any
ethical violations. Then I usually had to explain that no, the
WJCIC and the State Bar were
not supporting Mr. Butler, even if it looked like it at times.
As lawyers, isn't it our obligation to educate people so they can
make informed
decisions; not make the decisions for them? I still believe we can
keep a fair,
impartial, and balanced court by acting in this way. Fairness, like
reality, is sometimes in the
eye of the beholder.
Don Schultz, Madison
Wisconsin Lawyer