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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT