ILNews

Second COA interviews scheduled for Friday

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
During second interviews for an opening on the Indiana Court of Appeals, six semi-finalists will discuss their ideas for making the appellate court more efficient.

The seven-member Judicial Nominating Commission will begin second interviews Friday for the seat, which opens in August when Judge Patrick D. Sullivan retires. These six semi-finalists were chosen from an initial 20 applicants.
 
After these interviews, the commission will select three names to send to Gov. Mitch Daniels, who must then appoint a successor within 60 days of the vacancy.

Each candidate will get 30 minutes, and Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard has asked each candidate to use the first 7 to 10 minutes to describe three ideas for making the court a more effective institution.

The interview schedule is as follows: 9-9:30 a.m. - Marion Superior Judge Cynthia J. Ayers 9:30-10 a.m. - Marion Superior Judge Cale J. Bradford 10-10:30 a.m. - Cass County deputy prosecutor Randall C. Head 10:45-11:15 a.m. - Marion Superior Judge Robyn L. Moberly 11:15-11:45 a.m. - Hamilton Superior Judge William J. Hughes 11:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m. - Marion Superior Judge Kenneth H. Johnson 1:15 p.m. - Closed-door deliberations begin, followed by a public session and vote to name the three nominees.
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