Jeff Teichert's letter to the Faith and Freedom Network, as posted to their website. URL is above.I am a candidate for the Washington Court of Appeals. An appellate judge must have the ability to consistently apply general principles to specific facts and to reason and write coherently. I have spent most of my career writing briefs, which hones and develops these essential skills.
During my twelve-year career in the legal profession, I have filed briefs in the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeal for the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, the Washington Court of Appeals, and a variety of other state and federal courts and administrative agencies. As a law clerk for the Chief Justice of American Samoa, I assisted in preparing approximately 100 published judicial opinions over a two-year period. My career has provided excellent preparation for service on the Court of Appeals.
After six years in the profession, I took a year away from active law practice to attend The George Washington University Law School to pursue a Master of Laws (LLM) degree with an emphasis in British and early American constitutional history and environmental law. During that year, I spent a great deal of time studying theological influences on the development of rights theory. That year away from active law practice provided me with an invaluable opportunity to take stock of everything I believed and everything that I had learned. Too often, lawyers are so busy mastering the details of a particular specialty and serving the specific needs of their clients, that they don’t have the time to think about the big picture—which is how their important work affects our foundational values of liberty, equality and justice. I devoted a year of my productive life to that effort because I believe in freedom. I will be a better and more thoughtful Judge for it.
The foregoing paragraphs demonstrate my qualifications to serve on the Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, voters cannot be solely concerned with the qualifications of a judicial candidate. In America today, a candidate’s judicial philosophy matters immensely. In recent, well-publicized cases, judges have held that God should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance; that a City could take private property and give it to a developer simply to increase tax revenue; and that a child rapist should serve only sixty days in jail.
But judicial activism is not limited to a few well-publicized examples. Our own Washington Courts are increasingly buying into the idea that the law is a flexible instrument for Judges to use as they see fit in solving society’s problems. That idea is insulting to the sovereignty of a free people. I became a lawyer because I deeply believed in the Constitution and wanted to play a role in protecting it. I want to be a Judge to ensure that our Constitution continues to mean something. It has charted our course in centuries past—and we must be vigilant to ensure that it continues to guide us for generations to come.
For those of us who value our families, our faith, and our freedom, this election is a very serious matter. Recent decisions by the courts have thrown down the gauntlet to those of us who love this country and the principles upon which it was founded. Among the most important of these principles is a “government of laws and not of men.”[1] This idea is simply that the law, and not the arbitrary and unpredictable will of a person, should govern.
This foundational principle was fundamentally shaken when my opponent and two of her colleagues on the Court of Appeals ignored the plain language of the Uniform Parentage Act to create “de facto” parental rights for the former lesbian partner of a mother,[2] even though they admitted that the former partner had no claim to parental rights under the Act.
Letter, full text, as posted to FFN's blog. (part 1)
I am a candidate for the Washington Court of Appeals. An appellate judge must have the ability to consistently apply general principles to specific facts and to reason and write coherently. I have spent most of my career writing briefs, which hones and develops these essential skills.
During my twelve-year career in the legal profession, I have filed briefs in the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeal for the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, the Washington Court of Appeals, and a variety of other state and federal courts and administrative agencies. As a law clerk for the Chief Justice of American Samoa, I assisted in preparing approximately 100 published judicial opinions over a two-year period. My career has provided excellent preparation for service on the Court of Appeals.
After six years in the profession, I took a year away from active law practice to attend The George Washington University Law School to pursue a Master of Laws (LLM) degree with an emphasis in British and early American constitutional history and environmental law. During that year, I spent a great deal of time studying theological influences on the development of rights theory. That year away from active law practice provided me with an invaluable opportunity to take stock of everything I believed and everything that I had learned. Too often, lawyers are so busy mastering the details of a particular specialty and serving the specific needs of their clients, that they don’t have the time to think about the big picture—which is how their important work affects our foundational values of liberty, equality and justice. I devoted a year of my productive life to that effort because I believe in freedom. I will be a better and more thoughtful Judge for it.
The foregoing paragraphs demonstrate my qualifications to serve on the Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, voters cannot be solely concerned with the qualifications of a judicial candidate. In America today, a candidate’s judicial philosophy matters immensely. In recent, well-publicized cases, judges have held that God should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance; that a City could take private property and give it to a developer simply to increase tax revenue; and that a child rapist should serve only sixty days in jail.
But judicial activism is not limited to a few well-publicized examples. Our own Washington Courts are increasingly buying into the idea that the law is a flexible instrument for Judges to use as they see fit in solving society’s problems. That idea is insulting to the sovereignty of a free people. I became a lawyer because I deeply believed in the Constitution and wanted to play a role in protecting it. I want to be a Judge to ensure that our Constitution continues to mean something. It has charted our course in centuries past—and we must be vigilant to ensure that it continues to guide us for generations to come.
For those of us who value our families, our faith, and our freedom, this election is a very serious matter. Recent decisions by the courts have thrown down the gauntlet to those of us who love this country and the principles upon which it was founded. Among the most important of these principles is a “government of laws and not of men.”[1] This idea is simply that the law, and not the arbitrary and unpredictable will of a person, should govern.
This foundational principle was fundamentally shaken when my opponent and two of her colleagues on the Court of Appeals ignored the plain language of the Uniform Parentage Act to create “de facto” parental rights for the former lesbian partner of a mother,[2] even though they admitted that the former partner had no claim to parental rights under the Act.