ILNews

UPDATE: 5 appellate jurists seek retention

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
All of Indiana's appellate jurists facing retention this year will appear on November's ballot.

Facing a Tuesday deadline to file retention paperwork, the five jurists told Indiana Lawyer they hope to return to the Indiana Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or Tax Court. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, Justices Theodore R. Boehm and Brent E. Dickson, Court of Appeals Judge Carr Darden, and Tax Court Judge Thomas G. Fisher are up for retention.

The Indiana Secretary of State's Election Division reports that all five have filed paperwork for retention, and all have confirmed they'd like to return to their respective courts, including Justice Dickson who had said he was weighing the decision.

Turning 67 this week, Justice Dickson said the fact that he will be approaching the mandatory retirement age during the next 10-year term was a key reason for questioning whether he'd stay on another term, if retained. Much of his decision-making involved primarily "husband-and-wife discussions" but also involved him consulting his faith and deciding what was the best way to continue doing what he enjoys the best.

"This seems to be where I'm supposed to be," the Gary native said about the high court. "For me and my wife, it was abundantly clear that continuing to serve, if voters choose to keep me, is the best place for me to be. This is where I can best encourage lawyers in civility and professionalism, and participate in decisions and be a voice for whatever I'm a voice for."

The same goes for Chief Justice Shepard, who said he hadn't given much thought to life after the Supreme Court at this point and is ready to continue serving.

"I will stay as long as I'm useful and I'll know when that moment arrives," he said.

If all five are retained, only Chief Justice Shepard will be able to fulfill the 10-year retention term as the others will hit the mandatory retirement age of 75.

Read more about the retention issue in the July 23-Aug. 5, 2008, edition of Indiana Lawyer.
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