ILNews

22 seek Sullivan's spot on Supreme Court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission received 22 applications from attorneys and judges interested in becoming the state’s next Supreme Court justice.

The 16 women and six men are vying for a spot on the bench that will open up this year when Justice Frank Sullivan leaves to teach at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.

The applicants are:
1.    Hon. Cale J. Bradford, Indiana Court of Appeals
2.    Hon. Elaine B. Brown, Indiana Court of Appeals
3.    Hon. Marla K. Clark, Johnson Circuit Court, Juvenile Division
4.    Mr. Thomas M. Fisher, Indianapolis
5.    Ms. Alicia A. Gooden, Indianapolis
6.    Hon. Frances M. Gull, Allen Superior Court
7.    Mr. Lyle R. Hardman, Granger
8.    Ms. Carol Nemeth Joven, Indianapolis
9.    Ms. Julia Church Kozicki, Noblesville
10.    Ms. Abigail Lawless Kuzma, Indianapolis
11.    Ms. Erin Reilly Lewis, Indianapolis
12.    Ms. Andrielle M. Metzel, Indianapolis
13.    Hon. Steven R. Nation, Hamilton Superior Court 1
14.    Ms. Karen R. Orr, Monticello
15.    Ms. Diane L. Parsons, Indianapolis
16.    Ms. Brenda A. Roper, Indianapolis
17.    Hon. Loretta H. Rush, Tippecanoe Superior Court 3
18.    Mr. Geoffrey G. Slaughter, Indianapolis
19.    Hon. Elizabeth F. Tavitas, Lake Superior Court
20.    Hon. Marianne L. Vorhees, Delaware Circuit Court 1
21.    Hon. Mary G. Willis, Henry Circuit Court 1
22.    Mr. John P. Young, Indianapolis


The commission will release a list of the candidates who will be interviewed July 6, with public interviews taking place July 17 – 18. Semi-finalists will be interviewed Aug. 8 – 9. After the semi-finalists are interviewed, the Judicial Nominating Commission selects three names to send to the governor for selection.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT