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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  2. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  3. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

  4. Oops, I meant discipline, not disciple. Interesting that those words share such a close relationship. We attorneys are to be disciples of the law, being disciplined to serve the law and its source, the constitutions. Do that, and the goals of Magna Carta are advanced. Do that not and Magna Carta is usurped. Do that not and you should be disciplined. Do that and you should be counted a good disciple. My experiences, once again, do not reveal a process that is adhering to the due process ideals of Magna Carta. Just the opposite, in fact. Braveheart's dying rebel (for a great cause) yell comes to mind.

  5. It is not a sign of the times that many Ind licensed attorneys (I am not) would fear writing what I wrote below, even if they had experiences to back it up. Let's take a minute to thank God for the brave Baron's who risked death by torture to tell the government that it was in the wrong. Today is a career ruination that whistleblowers risk. That is often brought on by denial of licenses or disciple for those who dare speak truth to power. Magna Carta says truth rules power, power too often claims that truth matters not, only Power. Fight such power for the good of our constitutional republics. If we lose them we have only bureaucratic tyranny to pass onto our children. Government attorneys, of all lawyers, should best realize this and work to see our patrimony preserved. I am now a government attorney (once again) in Kansas, and respecting the rule of law is my passion, first and foremost.

ADVERTISEMENT