ILNews

New chief justice to be selected Aug. 6

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The next chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court will be chosen by the Judicial Nominating Commission Aug. 6, the court announced Friday.

The commission previously said interviews would take place that day with the four justices who could succeed Brent Dickson, who announced he would step down as chief justice sometime before Sept. 1. Beginning at 1 p.m., each justice will have 20 minutes before the commission in the following order: Loretta Rush, Mark Massa, Steven David and Robert Rucker.

The commission will meet from 1 to 2:30 p.m. before adjourning to executive session, after which members will reconvene in public session to vote for the next chief.

Dickson chairs the commission as is customary for chief justices. He said this week he doesn’t expect justices to unite behind a potential successor, as happened when he was named two years ago to take the place of retiring Chief Justice Randy Shepard.

“As in the past, all current Supreme Court justices have been invited to share their thoughts with the commission during the meeting. The commission has asked the justices to speak about the qualities and attributes important in a chief justice,” according to a statement released by the court.

Dickson in June announced he would step down as chief justice but remain on the court until he reaches the mandatory retirement age of 75 in July 2016.




 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Massive transformation
    From an earlier article in this e-zine "Chief Justice Brent Dickson, who worked in private practice in Lafayette prior to his appointment to the bench, said Rush’s appointment “marks the completion of a massive transformation of the Indiana Supreme Court.” He praised Rush for her intellect, determination and respect for judicial precedent and restraint." LORETTA RUSH FOR CHIEF JUDGE! And ..... Thank God for the massive transformation ... so very welcome. It only gets better and better.

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