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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT