To the editor:

In a recent decision, the Kansas Supreme Court chose not to expand Kansas law to make distributors of alcohol liable for injuries caused by drunken drivers. As an attorney representing one of the defendants, I naturally read the court’s ruling with heightened interest. However, even though the law did not change, I think every Kansan can draw important lessons from the case as well.

Specifically, it has become fashionable for certain politicians to criticize the court for being “activist,” “out of control” or “irresponsible.” This decision helps refute these charges as follows:

Myth 1: The court rushes to judgment. To the contrary, this case was argued to the court in March 2004. Whether you like the result or not, the passage of this much time shows that careful deliberation occurred.

Myth 2: The court is dominated by liberals. To the contrary, the decision was authored by Chief Justice Kay McFarland, whom no Kansas lawyer would ever describe as a liberal.

Myth 3: The court usurps the role of the Legislature. To the contrary, the court declined to alter existing law and specifically deferred to the Legislature as the proper body to make changes. A more clear acknowledgment of the concept of separation of powers cannot be made.

So, while it’s easy to aim verbal arrows at an institution that cannot answer back, reality is, as usual, more complex. Once again, the justices of the Kansas Supreme Court have shown that at least they, unlike some other Kansas officials, take their oaths of office seriously.

Jeff Southard,

Lawrence