OCR Text |
Show 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III I ! the7 I ENTERPRISE pragmatic dogmatics Street wisdom has it that Joe Ferguson, Craig Kessler and Jed Richardson are engaged in a quixotic undertaking. They presently compete for this years GOP congressional nomination to face the First District veteran, K. Gunn After his initial 1970 victory, McKay McKay in three outings never has garnered under 55 percent of the vote, and in that light the triplet Republican challenge almost begs dismissal as an exercise in futility. Closer examination, however, reveals that the quest may not be all that impractical. Although their chances are remote, they nonetheless are real. At worst, each could contribute even in defeat to the total GOP objective. At Best. In Utah, neither party should concede any post to the other. Either individual circumstances or electoral trends can and do unseat incumbents thought invulnerable. In 1976, Allan T. Howes Second District domain (D-Uta- became violate as Howes satyriasis became manifest. A Democrat now is a state representative from Sevier, and not too long ago a Republican was the state senator from Magna. on 0 AVGBIFKP A( by Kent Shearer Also, in the short run, the Repubican will limit over-a- ll Utah Democratic freedom of action. For instance, money will be required by McKay that otherwise would be channeled into the attempt to unseat Republican Representative Dan Marriott in the First District. McKay himself proclaims that he will not allow the 1978 attitude that McKay dont (sic) need any money.... Organizational, as well as monetary, dilution will occur. This rule holds especially true to McKays seat. His Democratic grasp is on a district that returned but 34 percent for Humphrey in 1968, 23 percent for McGovern in 1972 and 33 percent for Carter in 1976. By Democratic standards, McKay may be a moderate. By First District ones, he is less representative of the mainstream of his constituency than would be either Ferguson, Kessler or Richardson. h). Ferguson-Kessler-Richards- Tilting at windmills? At worst. Should he receive his fifth term, McKay will know that the folks back home continue to watch his record: this years Republican nominee will make that quite clear to him. This very knowledge, in itself, will tend to modify McKays adherence to national Democratic leftism. imBiFter Are, then, the efforts of Ferguson, Kessler and Richardson reminiscent of Don Quixote? Is their conservative crusade idealistic, but unrealistic? Do they tilt at windmills? Maybe, but not necessarily. And thats what makes political races. TOO I :1 1 annHAHH MCflMMwtAWr ftUMHRItff im m Aifer wm ,N&m7 nie 'hr crmM -- mcej wm for w 60MB. Things I missed out on So many opportunities come along in life and somehow escape us before we recognize them. Kent Shearer has prompted me to take inventory of such lost opportunities in my own life. For example, I was never offered an opportunity to sip Wild Turkey with the now legendary Willis W. Ritter. We never lunched together. Neither did I have an opportunity to visit his beautiful Thousand Springs ranch, which so many of his friends have told me about. The former Chief United States District Judge never invited me to be a guest at his home, and he was never a guest in mine. In fact, the only social occasion I can recall spending with Ritter occurred several years ago, when we were both guests with a score or so others at a dinner hosted by U of U President, David P. Gardner. With such opportunities I could have better experienced the keen intellect which even Ritters critics marvel at and which I observed so often while litigating in his court. or so I Fortunes were made, and lost, in Ritters court am told. I regret that I was never the beneficiary of such good fortune. I litigated many matters before Judge Ritter, but was almost always on the losing end and can truthfully say I have never made a nickel in his Court. My greatest victory at the hands of the Chief Judge was a decidedly pyrrhic one in the Texas Gulf case, where my net fee was $640 (offset by other losses) while the opposing attorneys were reputed to have earned $ millions for their abortive defense. The only other cases litigated to their conclusion in which I recall the Chief Judge 1 rendering a decision in my favor were those litigated for the U.S. Government, where money was not involved. Some of those cases were important nonetheless. To the contrary, perhaps as much or more than other lawyers in this city, I have experienced his bad temper, as characterized by Shearer (Enterprise, May 29). Ritter has even, on occasion, offered me his famous meals, courtesy of Sheriff Swede Larsen. All of which is too bad, for 1 now learn thanks to that I was apparently one of Ritters buddies at the Shearer bar all along. Had that been pointed out to the Chief Judge, and were the Ritter critics correct, I would have fared much 15-ce- nt better. Seriously though, Kent, I can understand the conjugal loyalty evident in your column, which is a fine human reaction, but not an intellectually honest one. The calculated inferences you presented are downright scurrilous, in view of the facts. I did, as you indicate, write in defense of Ritter (more than the twice that you indicated). I did not defend obdurate avoidance of judicial precedent. In defending Ritter, moreover, I was in the good company of the incumbent President of the Utah Bar, at least one past President of the Bar, and a great many outstanding lawyers who also defended him, not to mention a majority of the Bar which voted against moves to censure him. None of us defended Ritter as his buddies, but in keeping with the Code of Professional Responsibility of the ABA, which squarely declares that judges are entitled to receive the support of the bar against unjust criticism for the reason that they are not wholly free to defend themselves. It is those whose carping criticism, in disregard of the standards of the profession, extended over three decades whose minds (seem) moulded by incessant advocacy. Shame on you, Kent, for saying otherwise. |