Oil City News publishes letters, cartoons and opinions as a public service. The content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Oil City News or its employees. Letters to the editor can be submitted by following the link at our opinion section.

Wyoming Supreme Court judge process better than federal’s

Dear Casper,

This letter is in response to Mr. Ross Schriftman’s letter to the editor from April 11. His opinion appears to be that the Wyoming process of selecting Wyoming Supreme Court justices is somehow flawed. Justices are selected through a merit-based assisted appointment process. When a vacancy occurs, a seven-member Judicial Nominating Commission recommends three candidates to the governor, who appoints one.

Appointed justices serve at least one year before standing in a nonpartisan retention election for an eight-year term.

The commission consists of the chief justice as chair/tie-breaker, three attorneys selected by the Wyoming State Bar and three non-attorneys appointed by the governor. The governor must select one of the three nominees provided by the commission to fill the vacancy.

After serving at least one year, justices stand for retention in the next general election. Voters cast a “yes” or “no” vote. If retained, the justice serves an eight-year term.

Candidates must be U.S. citizens, Wyoming residents for at least three years, licensed to practice law, and have at least nine years of legal experience. Justices must retire at age 70.

U.S. Supreme Court are appointed for life!

I would offer that the Wyoming process is superior to that of the U.S. Constitution. Voters are involved the process, which we are not at the federal level.

Wyoming justices can be impeached and removed from office by the state House of Representatives and Senate.

Michael Bond
Casper

Wyoming delegation must answer for President Trump’s Iran policy

Dear Casper,

Sent this to each of our Wyoming congressional delegates. I lived in Montana for years. These are the questions the Daily Montanan asked of their elected congressional representatives.

I ask the same questions of our Wyoming delegation. Montana got no answers. I doubt that we will either.

1. President Donald Trump has continued to threaten to hit targets that would affect or kill civilians in Iran. Do you support his stated objectives and deadlines?
2. Are you concerned that some of these targets could be construed as attacking civilians and therefore become war crimes?
3. Do you have any concerns about wiping out an entire civilization, as Trump has threatened?
4. If these are only rhetorical threats, what does that do to our stature in the world when we make threats, but don’t follow through with them?
5. Polls have continued to show more than a majority of Americans do not support the efforts against Iran. Why do you support the effort?
6. If you do not support the effort in Iran, at what point would you support Congressional intervention or oversight on the issue?
7. Have you been briefed and do you believe that there are clear objectives in this war with Iran, and how can you communicate those with your constituents?
8. The U.S. has repeatedly criticized Vladimir Putin and Russia for its invasion and treatment of the Ukrainian people and it sovereignty. How does that differ from America’s “excursion” into Iran?
9. What is your message for Montanans who are seeing gas prices and the cost of living generally increase?
10. Last week, President Trump said that America doesn’t have enough money for healthcare and childcare; further, those things must be left to the individual states in order to fund the military? Do you agree?
11. President Trump continues to boost military budgets and request additional funding for the war in Iran. Do you support these?

Tami Munari
Laramie

Pregnancy is personal, not political

Dear Casper,

The recent Wyoming Supreme Court ruling, which affirmed abortion is health care, has caused some who disagree with the ruling to attack Wyoming’s judicial system.

In an opinion letter, candidate Ross Schriftman facetiously writes, “…our God-given First Amendment right of free speech does not apply when criticizing our fellow citizen judges.”

This is the first flaw in his logic because the Constitution was not written by God, therefore the right of freedom of speech was thought up and written by men. God is not the author nor guarantor of personal freedoms — our Constitution and judicial system are.

The second flaw in his argument references a letter signed by 111 professionally-trained, experienced, and well-respected Wyoming judges and attorneys explaining how the courts arrive at their rulings. It is illogical to claim we are all “citizen judges” because even though citizens have a constitutionally-guaranteed right to an opinion, it does not make every citizen a legal expert. The judges’ and attorneys’ excellent letter speaks for itself.

Mr. Schriftman claims the Supreme Court, “… create(d) an absurd definition of health care to include the intentional murder of pre-born human persons; something they did to justify overriding the equal protection clause… .” This logic is flawed because it is based on a conflation of an obsession with “pre-born human persons” and equal protection under the law.

There is significant disagreement on the issue of fetal personhood and who gets to determine it: the doctors? the lawyers? the pregnant woman? the anti-choice crowd?

Many understand and appreciate it has taken women almost 200 years to gain and keep Equal Protection Under the Law, and the disagreement over who is legally, materially, and morally responsible for a fertilized human egg has always been part this historical struggle. But it was the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that finally established a constitutional right, for women and men, to private health care decisions and, since pregnancy is a health condition, that included abortion.

Even though it wasn’t explicit, Roe also effectively affirmed that bestowing of “personhood” is a private determination to be made by the pregnant woman and her God. But, sadly, here we are again, dealing with folks who mistakenly believe they have a right to interfere in someone else’s pregnancy.

The Rev. L Kee
Casper

Why does the U.S. keep troops in oil producing countries?

Dear Casper,

There are two facts that don’t ever seem to be considered by our government that cost us dearly.

Osama Bin Laden said the stationing of U.S. troops in the Middle East was the reason Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. Does the U.S. believe that the oil producing countries in the Middle East will only sell us oil if we force them to by stationing troops there? I’m not aware of any other countries that believe that.

The other fact is, the U.S. is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon offensively. There are several countries that have nuclear weapons, including North Korea. The reason countries have been reluctant to use nuclear weapons is MAD, mutually assured destruction. Consequently, is it reasonable to expect Iran, should they develop a nuclear weapon, to attack the U.S., knowing that our superiority in nuclear capability would assure the complete destruction of their country? It clearly would be suicidal for them to do so.

But, just to be cautious, rather than destroying the entire country to deter Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, wouldn’t it make more sense to destroy their nuclear infrastructure?

Bill Douglass
Casper

Related