ILNews

Blomquist: Valuing Our Judiciary

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

blomquist-ibaI am writing this President’s column in San Francisco at a meeting of the National Conference of Bar Presidents. Yes, there is an association of us, frightening though that may seem, yet I unapologetically say it is a good thing. This association helps bar leaders and executives analyze and confront the unique challenges we have as our legal worlds collide, whether it be defining (and paying for) the ideal legal education in 2013, triaging the challenges of our underfunded courts, the changing professional landscape for today’s (and tomorrow’s) practitioners or the very real access to justice issues apparent by the increasing percentage of individuals and businesses who just cannot afford to hire a lawyer anymore to solve their problems.

For example: one panel I attended at this conference was about the continued politicizing of the judiciary in this country and the literal backlash against judicial officers because of the decisions they make. As if judges’ interpretations of the law should be subject to political approval; as if their jobs depended on their towing the party line.

Lest you think this is not possible, think again. In 2009, a unanimous Iowa Supreme Court struck down that state’s law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples only.1 Subsequently in 2010, three of those justices up for retention were defeated – the result of an unprecedented attack on the merit selection process saying it is wholly undemocratic, and that judges’ legal opinions should mirror the opinions of the general public. Regardless of what you think of the issue of same sex marriage, to me it is abhorrent that our judicial officers can literally be removed from the bench because their interpretation of the law is not in alignment with prevailing public opinion.

This is not just an issue in Iowa. At least nine other states including Indiana have considered measures in their most recent legislative sessions that would significantly modify or even eliminate the “merit” selection system as it stands, resigning judicial selection to political influence over qualifications.

However, here in Indianapolis at the IndyBar, we are staying the course and not wavering from our longstanding position in favor of merit selection. We will continue to support our members on the bench by responding to unfair judicial criticism. Likewise, we support limits on political contributions and a transparency in reporting. We oppose slating fees that give the appearance of impropriety and subsequently put our judges unnecessarily at risk.

As recently as last month, the full IndyBar Board of Directors approved the proposed Model Rule Guidelines which were formulated by the Attorneys for an Independent Bench (AIB) Committee earlier this summer under the superb leadership of AIB Committee Co-Chairs and Past Presidents John Kautzman and Kevin McGoff. Visit www.indybar.org to view the proposed guidelines.

This Bar will continue to serve its members, who in overwhelming numbers support Merit Selection and the Rule of Law unfettered by political persuasion. As Alexander Hamilton outlined in the Federalist Papers, it is the judiciary’s unique power to be able to render government action unconstitutional, even if it may be popular. Absent this power of independence, there are no sufficient checks and balances against unconstitutional government action. Absent this power of independence, judges are just politicians in black robes.•

1 Varnum v. Brien
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT