ILNews

3 remain in running for Indiana Supreme Court

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two trial judges and an appellate attorney have emerged as finalists for the Indiana Supreme Court, but one those three almost didn’t make it to Indianapolis for the second interview on Friday.

Story continues below


After nearly five hours of interviews and nearly two hours of deliberation, the seven-member Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission on Friday selected Boone Circuit Judge Steven David, Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly, and Indianapolis attorney Karl Mulvaney as finalists for the high court opening.

But Judge David almost didn’t make it to Indianapolis that day.

“I thought I’d be stuck on the side of the road when I was supposed to be sitting there in front of the commission,” Judge David told Indiana Lawyer today, laughing about his car trouble late last week that almost interfered with the appellate interview.

Getting behind the wheel that morning, the judge said he discovered a squirrel had eaten through some of the wiring and he ended up driving on four out of eight engine cylinders and with no air conditioning.

“A squirrel attempted to sabotage my bid,” he said. “Of all the worst possible days for car problems, it happens then. I barely made it down there, and barely made it back.”

He was the first interview, starting at 8:45 a.m. The remaining eight semi-finalists appeared for their 30-minute interviews throughout the day, before the commission members met privately at 3 p.m. to deliberate. After two hours of discussion, the members publicly announced their decision about 5 p.m.

Judge David got the news as he was standing in the auto repair shop, listening to the mechanic explain what had happened and what it would cost. He stepped away from the counter to take the news about his being chosen as a finalist for the state’s highest court.

“I’m simply honored and humbled, and I’d be lying if I didn’t say I was excited,” the judge said. “You have to be impressed with the process and the openness of it all.”

The other two finalists echoed those thoughts, with Mulvaney and Judge Moberly also expressing their excitement about the process overall and being selected as finalists. Judge Moberly talked about feeling very comfortable during her second interview, though it went by very quickly because of the “fun mix of commission members who are warm and engaging people.”

"I can't imagine ever being better," Judge Moberly said after receiving the news on Friday. “I'm thrilled and humbled to be one of the three finalists being sent to the governor.”

Now, it’s up to Gov. Mitch Daniels to decide who’ll be the next Indiana Supreme Court justice. Whoever is chosen will be the Republican governor’s first appointment to the state’s highest court, the first new justice since 1999, and he or she will succeed Justice Theodore R. Boehm once he retires from the bench Sept. 30.

Aside from the three finalists, those who made it past the first round of cuts were: Indianapolis attorney Ellen Boshkoff with Baker & Daniels; Indiana University associate general counsel Kipley Drew; Johnson Superior Judge Cynthia Emkes; Indiana Solicitor General Thomas M. Fisher; Hamilton Superior Judge Steven Nation; and State Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford.

Each person began their interview with a congratulatory welcome from Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, who chairs the commission. He then asked each semi-finalist to address a two-part question sent out by the commission: "What do you consider your finest professional accomplishment or contribution?" and "Name two things that need improving in the Indiana court system that a justice might help solve."

All raised points about what they might tackle if they were a member of the court, and then responded to other questions posed by commission members – their views on approaching issues of first impression, how they might complement the current court makeup, what the judiciary’s three most pressing issues are, and how justices should factor in political, economic, and social ramifications in decision making.

A full rundown of the interviews by all nine semi-finalists can be found at Indiana Lawyer’s blog, First Impressions.

The governor’s general counsel, David Pippen, said the 60-day clock begins ticking once Daniels receives an official evaluation report on the three finalists from the nominating commission; that’s expected this week. Interviews will likely be scheduled “pretty quickly,” and there’s really no set procedure for how that interview process will happen. Whether one interview will take place or finalists will be invited back for a second informal interview hasn’t been determined, but it will be up to the governor to decide. Pippen said he doesn’t expect the governor will come close to running the 60-day deadline, but if Daniels doesn’t meet that deadline, the chief justice would make an appointment from the same list.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. @ President Snow, like they really read these comments or have the GUTS to show what is the right thing to do. They are just worrying about planning the next retirement party, the others JUST DO NOT CARE about what is right. Its the Good Ol'Boys - they do not care about the rights of the mother or child, they just care about their next vote, which, from what I gather, the mother left the state of Indiana because of the domestic violence that was going on through out the marriage, the father had three restraining orders on him from three different women, but yet, the COA judges sent a strong message, go ahead men put your women in place, do what you have to do, you have our backs... I just wish the REAL truth could be told about this situation... Please pray for this child and mother that God will some how make things right and send a miracle from above.

  2. I hear you.... Us Christians are the minority. The LGBTs groups have more rights than the Christians..... How come when we express our faith openly in public we are prosecuted? This justice system do not want to seem "bias" but yet forgets who have voted them into office.

  3. Perhaps the lady chief justice, or lady appellate court chief judge, or one of the many female federal court judges in Ind could lead this discussion of gender disparity? THINK WITH ME .... any real examples of race or gender bias reported on this ezine? But think about ADA cases ... hmmmm ... could it be that the ISC actually needs to tighten its ADA function instead? Let's ask me or Attorney Straw. And how about religion? Remember it, it used to be right up there with race, and actually more protected than gender. Used to be. Patrick J Buchanan observes: " After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” Harry Truman said we were. In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests." http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/#q3yVdhxDVMMxiCmy.99 I could link to any of my supreme court filings here, but have done that more than enough. My case is an exclamation mark on what PJB writes. BUT not in ISC, where the progressives obsess on race and gender .... despite a lack of predicate acts in the past decade. Interested in reading more on this subject? Search for "Florida" on this ezine.

  4. Great questions to six jurists. The legislature should open a probe to investigate possible government corruption. Cj rush has shown courage as has justice Steven David. Who stands with them?

  5. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

ADVERTISEMENT