ILNews

Commission wraps up interviews, begins deliberations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Judicial Nominating Commissions has finished interviewing the semifinalists who want to replace Frank Sullivan Jr. on the Supreme Court. The commission went into executive session around 4 p.m. Wednesday.

Below are summaries of the four interviews that took place Wednesday afternoon. All applicants were asked about what qualities a justice should possess.

Henry Circuit Judge Mary Willis said the factors were most important in selecting a justice at this time: proven civility and collegiality, and breadth of experience.

“I think this is established by work on leadership committees,” Willis said of her experience. Willis said her legal experience, administrative experience and familiarity with technology would serve the court well. “I think having that background and how they will work together will be a complement.”

Willis said her private practice and experience on bench were of equal importance. “In any decision you're going to draw on that,” she said of her experiences.

Asked about whether she would interpret constitutional issues with a strict reading or holding the documents as living document, Willis would hold to the original writings, but said, “We are privileged to live in a democracy that has constitutions that are able to adapt as we go forward.”

Willis said diversity was important on the Supreme Court, but that could include life experience, personal background and legal experience. “I think different backgrounds will make discussions at the Supreme Court table more robust.”

In Henry County, Willis said the court system had embrace technology through the Odyssey system and other advances. “Technology is the one issue we're going to chase,” she said. “We may be small, but we're mighty.”

Technology is also the issue that she commented on when asked what could best improve the court.

John Young, partner with Young & Young Attorneys in Indianapolis, said the panel should most importantly look for diversity, but not just in terms of race or gender. He said it was important that someone have experience in a diverse array of legal practice.

“I think it's also important that somebody have a great deal of worldly experience,” he said, as well as someone who has leadership abilities. “Somebody who believes that talking to the people is just as important as somebody who talks to the powers that be.”

Dickson asked about whether interpretation of constitutional issues should be done strictly or through an evolving standard. “I would be inclined to try to determine what the founders and the drafters and the ratifiers of the Constitution meant,” Young said, giving deference to the meaning of terms at the time the document was adopted.

Young was asked about whether he's kept up with developments in criminal law after more than two decades away from that practice. He said he does through the traditional avenues of legal publications, advance sheets and websites.

Young said the Supreme Court could be improved by making sure Odyssey was available in all counties throughout the state, and that funding was the key. Where the legislature hasn't provided adequate money, he said, “It's a matter of carving out money from filing fees.”

Hamilton Superior Judge Steve Nation said experience was the major factor that must be considered for a Supreme Court justice. A judge who's managed cases and applied the law will have a deeper understanding of cases as a justice, he said. “The books do not tell you everything.”

“The other item I think you have to have is the ability to work with other people,” Nation said. That includes the ability to see where a judge's opinion is and how it fits in and can supplement the views of the other justices.

Dickson raised the issue of Nation's age. At 62, Nation is the oldest seminfinalist. “My devotion to duty and my devotion to people has never changed,” he said. He noted that the average tenure of Indiana justices has been nine years and he has 13 left to serve.

Asked whether he believed the law or the end result of a decision was most important, Nation said it was difficult for him to make a line distinction between the two, but he said it was important the there was consistency in the way the law was applied.

Nation also said he would interpret matters of constitutionality “as our original founders have given that document.” He said that's the contract on which citizen and lawmakers rely, and “If people want to change it, they have the right to amend it.”

Asked whether civil or criminal cases presented the greatest intellectual challenge, Nation didn't hesitate: civil. “In contracts case and in tort litigation, it's always been intriguing for me,” he said, citing it as a reason why he ran for the bench.

Nation also said the court could improve its communication with the public to make sure people understand what's going on in the court.

Tippecanoe Superior Judge Loretta Rush said humility was an important factory that could lead to judicial restraint. Character also is important. Commission member William Winingham noted that Rush was the lone semifinalist who mentioned humility as an important attribute.

Rush also said a broad and deep basis of professional and life experience was important, as was collegiality and consensus building. She recalled her grandmother’s advice that “ ... a little sugar goes a long way,” and that collegiality “helps us to build on the unbelievable foundation we have in the Supreme Court.”

The experience as a juvenile court judge has been challenging, Rush said, noting that those cases call on multiple disciplines.

Empathy is important in demeanor but not in decisions. “I want everyone to walk out of the courtroom feeling they were heard,” Rush said.

Rush said she would soon be working with a legislative study committee on the Department of Child Services and that it was important to be involved with such efforts. “All that work flows down to the work we do with parents and children,” she said.

Rush also noted, “I always like the Supreme Court decisions where they send a little red flag out to the General Assembly” about an area where legislative clarification might be needed. “I think working with that branch yields so many results.”

Asked about areas where the Supreme Court could improve, Rush said finding equitable and stable funding for the local trial courts was paramount. “We talk like we've never talked before” about funding issues, Rush noted, adding that courts in Kentucky are closing one day per week to save money. She said local trial court funding was an issue of access to justice.

 

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