JD Haas

In September of 2011, I was asked to try to stop a foreclosure in Wisconsin. The homeowner was a woman who had lived in her home for more than 25 years. She was recently widowed, she had recently experienced health problems that prevented her from working full-time, and she had fallen behind in her payments by a few months.

I appeared at the hearing and worked with the lender on a settlement that would allow her to keep her home and that would ensure that the lender got paid. If I had not represented this woman at her foreclosure hearing, she would have been evicted from her home of 25 years.

I love being an attorney because I can help people. My client will always remember that I was able to help her stay in her home, and I will always remember the positive effect that I had on her life.

I am proud to be an attorney who appears in federal and state courts in most states in the Midwest. Because of my experience in trying cases, I know that there is a funding crisis for the court system in almost every state. Some people do not care because they do not use the court system and "my taxes are high enough". In this letter I will discuss why having a vibrant court system should be important to everyone, and then I will discuss why it is necessary to have independent judges.

The Court System Under Pressure.

Some people believe that we can save money by cutting funding to the court system. That is a short-sighted view for at least 2 reasons: 1) we need a healthy court system to guard our freedoms and rights from government action; and 2) we need a court system to protect our rights from the actions of other citizens and corporations and to resolve disputes.

"Checks And Balances".

Imagine that a business has 3 equal partners: one partner (the legislature) raises money, one partner (the governor) conducts business, and the third equal partner (the court system) makes sure that the other partners act legally and follow the business plan (the Constitution). When one partner acts illegally, or does not follow the business plan, the third partner, the court system, has the power to overrule that illegally-acting partner.

What happens to this balance of power between the equal partners if the legislature and governor decide that they are not going to fund the court system? In other words: What happens if two partners decide to reduce the power of the third partner?

The first issue is: Would it be legal (or Constitutional) for one equal partner, or branch of government, to put itself above another branch of government by cutting spending to that branch? The U. S. Constitution and state constitutions created "checks and balances" and an equal partnership of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, so that one branch could not become too powerful and take control of the government. If one branch reduced the power of the court system by underfunding the court system; that would destroy the "checks and balances", it would prevent the courts from fulfilling their "watchdog" role, and it would be unconstitutional because it would reduce the power of an equal partner.

The Courts Protect Our Freedoms And Rights.

The second issue is: If the court system is underfunded, who will protect our freedoms and rights from the government, other citizens, and corporations? Many state governments are facing severe economic problems and some people say that we should cut spending to the court system in order to save money. This argument has some followers because some feel that, "We can cut court funding because the court system deals with criminals and I am not a criminal" or "The court system deals with lawsuits and I will never be in a lawsuit". It is true that most people are never charged with a crime and most people are never in a lawsuit. If we do not have a vibrant court system, who will help you if you are falsely accused of a crime, who will help you if you have to seek justice against a powerful corporation, and who will be on your jury if you need help?

The court system serves as a limit on the government so that the government cannot eliminate our freedoms and rights. The court system also prevents citizens and corporations from trampling on the rights of other citizens. Lastly, the court system solves disputes when other methods fail. Without an adequately funded court system, the government, corporations, and other citizens could take our property or injure us without our ability to fight that injustice. The court system is the guardian of our rights--if it is underfunded, it cannot protect our rights.

There is an expression that says "Freedom isn't free". That means that the freedoms that we enjoy in this country were paid for by the blood of our forefathers. It also means that if a person wants to have Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, the Right to Bear Arms, the Right to a Jury Trial, and others—then that person must be willing to pay for the court system that ensures those freedoms and rights.

We all need an independent court system that can correct any mistakes made by the government hold people and corporations accountable for their actions. Please contact your representatives and tell them how important adequate funding for the court system is to all of us.

Judges Under Pressure.

Sometimes individual judges make decisions, and sometimes a group of judges, acting together as an appellate court, makes decisions. These judges must make decisions according to the law as they understand the law—even if they personally disagree with the decision.

The majority of citizens often agree with the courts; however, sometimes the majority disagrees with a legal ruling and tries to punish judges because of those rulings. Judges are designed to be independent so that they can make the decisions that might be opposed by the majority because the majority is not always right.

In the 1950's, for example, the majority of citizens in some parts of the country believed that educating black people and white people in "separate but equal" schools was appropriate. (The schools did not really provide equal education for black people). The U. S. Supreme Court, knowing that their decision would be opposed by the majority, reversed this policy of segregation. Without independent judges--judges who are able to make unpopular decisions--we would still have segregated schools.

Judges are people just like you and I, and sometimes they make mistakes; but, the fact that the majority does not like a decision does not automatically mean that the decision is wrong. The U. S. Constitution and state constitutions created independent judges so that they could rule against the majority, when necessary, and be a limit on the majority's power. We cannot take this independence from judges, we cannot punish them when we do not agree with them, because history may show that they were correct and we were wrong.