ILNews

Chinn: Why The Indiana Supreme Court Matters

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

iba-chinn-scottThe profession and the citizenry have been blessed with a great Supreme Court in Indiana over the past several decades. There are several reasons for that, and several reasons why it matters.

Our Supreme Court Justices are smart and hard-working. All outward appearances demonstrate that our Justices take time to consider their opinions and the effects of their words. Agree or disagree with an outcome, it is a rare case that finds lawyers kvetching about Indiana Supreme Court opinions being poorly written or reasoned. As practitioners we gain stability in that.

Being appointed to the Court is a political process, although less so in Indiana than in other places. Even so, there is no way to “count noses” on the Indiana Supreme Court in a case with political implications as has become the inevitable practice in analyzing cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, for example. Our citizenry benefits from that sense that our Court is not highly politicized.

And think about how dignified our Court is. One supreme court in a sister state is making headlines about infighting – both verbally and physically. Ours couldn’t be more different, and we benefit from the esteem the citizenry can hold for our Court. And we lawyers don’t waste gossiping about the drama and worrying about its effects.

The Court’s penchant toward civility extends beyond the confines of the Justices’ conference table to oral advocates as well. Although most lawyers don’t argue cases or watch them being argued before the Indiana Supreme Court, as one who has and does, I can tell you first hand that the Justices treat advocates respectfully and engage in probing but constructive dialogue with advocates as part of an exercise in high-level legal problem solving. Unlike the practices in some other courts outside our borders, there are no mean-spirited, demeaning or ostentatiously rhetorical questions in our Court.

Finally, the Court and its Justices are connected to lawyers and the profession in many significant ways. As just one example, many of the Justices have been active participants in IndyBar meetings of members, committees, events (like Bench-Bar), and other activities. And former Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard’s initiation of the Indiana Conference for Legal Education Opportunity (ICLEO) has helped hundreds of students with diverse backgrounds prepare for law school and life. Similarly, Justice Frank Sullivan’s work to improve the opportunities for minorities in the judicial system has drawn award-winning recognition from the American Bar Association.

I mention former Chief Justice Shepard and Justice Sullivan, because with the former having already left and the recent announcement that the latter is leaving the Court, this is literally a time of change. What I trust and feel confident won’t change is the Court’s orientation toward the citizenry and the bar. We congratulate and wish well IndyBar member and newly appointed Justice Mark Massa, who comes to the Court from the perspective of a practicing lawyer—a quality not resident in an appointment to the Court in some time.

Finally, even as I extol the virtues of the Indiana Supreme Court, let me add one deficiency, which the Court itself cannot remedy. It is the obvious point that there remains no female Justice on the Court. In my view, and in light of the positive qualities I reviewed earlier, the only serious blemish the Court displays is this lack of gender diversity. I realize that raising that matter necessarily provokes a little controversy—probably more about the process than about my assertion that gender diversity on the Court is desirable. But as a thought exercise, and realizing that this is in no way the only issue that the Court could benefit from a female justice’s perspective, imagine that some issue connected to the highly charged national debate about funding for contraception came before the Indiana Supreme Court. Now imagine that, reminiscent of the Congressional committee episode on the same subject several weeks ago, there is no female voice on the Court to ask questions of the advocates and speak to the issues in the Justices’ conference on the case. While that might not in itself undo the Court’s reputation and good works, it would be seem genuinely awkward to enough people that it would undermine at least a little of the positive feeling that most of us otherwise have about the Court. That’s because to so many of us, the Court matters.•

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. I just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  2. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  3. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  4. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT