ILNews

Dickson says consensus among justices on next chief unlikely

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Before Brent Dickson was selected chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court more than two years ago, his fellow justices came one by one before the Judicial Nominating Commission and said he was the man for the job.

As he prepares to step down as chief in coming months, Dickson said he doubts that will happen this time around when the commission chooses his successor.

“My guess is it’s not likely the other justices among themselves would agree who should be the leader,” Dickson said.

Dickson, who chairs the commission that will select his successor, said he doesn’t like to characterize the process as a competition, and any of the justices is capable of leading the court.

“I don’t see it so much as a contest as what I’ve seen so far is my colleagues are willing to serve but not aggressively seeking to win,” he said.

“They are approaching this as an opportunity for service, not something that’s colored with personal aggrandizement.”

Dickson announced in June he will step down as chief justice sometime before Sept. 1, and the commission is scheduled to meet Aug. 6 for public interviews with Justices Steven David, Mark Massa, Robert Rucker and Loretta Rush.

Dickson succeeded Randall Shepard, who presided over the court for the longest period in state history. Dickson, who’s served since 1986, was seen as providing continuity to a court that has added three justices – David, Massa and Rush – in less than four years.

Stepping down as chief but remaining on the court, Dickson said, will allow him to concentrate on writing opinions in his remaining time before he hits the mandatory retirement age of 75 in July 2016.

He said during his tenure, the chief justice’s work has been shared among all the justices.

“I’m frankly blessed to have great people to work with,” he said, noting the justices appointed in recent years “really jumped in the deep end since they came on the court.

“Each has had important responsibilities, and as a group we’ve discussed most of the major decisions that fall to the chief justice,” Dickson said. “It’s not going to come as a surprise or a complete new thing to any one of them.”

Indiana Lawyer readers have their own ideas of who they think will be the next chief justice. In a recent online poll on this topic, David emerged as the frontrunner – grabbing 40 percent of the votes. Rush came in second with 27 percent of the votes followed by Massa’s 22 percent. Rucker, who will be at the mandatory retirement age when his current term ends, received 10 percent of the votes.
 
 

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 ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT