ILNews

Justice Alito headlines conference

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Relations between courts and Congress have been strained lately, and a contingent of both are meeting in Indianapolis today to explore the reasons, examine how judicial independence fits in, and try to lay groundwork for improving relations.

The Indiana State Bar Association is sponsoring the "Relations Between Congress and the Federal Courts" conference at the Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis, which began at 8:30 a.m. and features U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. as a key speaker.

More than 100 judges and attorneys are attending the daylong conference, including all five Indiana Supreme Court justices and an array of other state and federal jurists.

"We're here for a reason .... That there's a feeling, one that's not yet ripened into a conclusion, that something isn't right with relations between Congress and the federal courts," said law professor Gerard Magliocca, who talked about the needed dialogue between the branches. "It's calm but tense. We have a reason to be concerned."

Justice Alito noted issues to be concerned with most are judicial pay, growing caseloads, and ambiguous statutes written by lawmakers.

"I'm concerned about the future of the federal judiciary," he said. "We need to bridge that gap of communication."

He suggested more understanding is needed between branches, both need to exercise self-restraint in encroaching on each other's authority, and that judges and lawmakers must rise above the public's cynicism about government and courts.

Magliocca noted the issues exist with District and Circuit courts, rather than with the Supreme Court, and agreed that congressional inaction is largely to blame regarding ways for elected officials to better communicate with the judiciary. He suggests exploring a type of interbranch committee that could review and suggest policy, and a system where the Chief Justice or member of the judiciary could regularly testify before Congress, similar to how the Federal Reserve Chairman currently does on monetary policy twice a year.

Prior to Justice Alito's keynote address, a trio of Hoosier congressmen - U.S. Reps. Mike Pence, Baron Hill, and Brad Ellsworth - also weighed in on various legal issues, such as judicial salaries and compensation, cameras in courts, and how the relationship between the branches can be strengthened. All expressed worry about the line between congressional oversight of the judiciary and independence.

"The greatest threat to the judiciary in the 21st century is elitism," Pence said, noting that can be found in situations such as the nation's highest courts displaying the Ten Commandments, and having prayer to open legislative and judicial proceedings, "... where in Winchester, Indiana, you can't do those things. That tears at the fabric of credibility within the judiciary."

While the conference focuses on serious concerns, Justice Alito offered some humor by noting that he hopes his visit to Indiana will "earn him some credit" with Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who grew up in Indiana.

"I'd told him when I first joined the court that I'd never been to Indiana," Justice Alito said. "He thought that was a huge gap in my background. Maybe this will earn some credit, maybe help on opinion assignments."This afternoon, a panel of judges will talk about these same issues from their perspectives. The panel includes Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard, U.S. District Chief Judge Larry McKinney in the Southern District, U.S. District Chief Judge Robert Miller Jr. in the Northern District, and U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Baker in Indianapolis who is also president of the Federal Judges Association.
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. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT