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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT