ILNews

Day 2 of interviews for justice spot

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By the end of the day, the seven-member Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission will decide who to bring back for a second round of interviews for the state’s next Supreme Court justice.

Interviews continued today for the remaining 15 applicants for the high court to replace retiring Justice Theodore Boehm. Nineteen of the 34 applicants went before the commission Tuesday.

Questions mirrored those asked during the first day, focusing on experience, views on collegiality, judicial philosophy, and what leadership roles the court’s justices should be taking.

In telling members why he’d want to move from Indiana Solicitor General to Supreme Court justice, Thomas Fisher said that he wanted to be a judge since clerking at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals early in his career, and this is the next logical step to be able to think intellectually about the law.

“It comes out of the realization that this won’t last forever, no matter how much I love it,” he said. “The possibility of being a justice on our Supreme Court thrills me to no end.”

Responding to a concern about his lack of trial experience, Fisher told members that his experience understanding the overall court process, including trial level and jury issues, is beneficial.

Marion Superior judges Cynthia Ayers and Robyn Moberly, and Johnson Superior Judge Cynthia Emkes discussed their experience handling nearly every type of case while on the trial-court bench.

Judge Emkes talked specifically about the growth of her county and its impact on the courts while also mentioning her experience in handling the high profile death-penalty case of Michael Dean Overstreet.

Lake Superior Judge Mary Beth Bonaventura discussed her handling of juvenile and family court issues and said that experience could help “breathe new life” into the high court.

Also interviewing today are Boone Circuit Judge Steven H. David; Granger attorney Lyle R. Hardman of Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros; Hamilton Superior Judge William J. Hughes; Howard Superior Judge William C. Menges Jr.; Indianapolis attorney Karl L. Mulvaney of Bingham McHale;, Valparaiso University School of Law distinguished practitioner-in-residence Clare Kraegel Neuchterlein; Indianapolis attorney Curtis E. Shirely; Steubern Circuit Judge Allen N. Wheat; Henry Circuit Judge Mary G. Willis; and Abigail Lawlis Kuzma, chief counsel of consumer protection in the Attorney General’s Office.

The commission goes into executive session at 4 p.m. to discuss the applicants and then will hold a public vote on who will become semi-finalists. Those people return for second interviews July 30 before the three finalists’ names are forwarded to the governor for final consideration and appointment.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT