ILNews

Dickson values continuity for court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s new chief justice will preside over a Supreme Court facing a transition that could test the stability and civility that have been its hallmarks for more than two decades.

Brent E. Dickson’s ascension to chief justice from acting chief was affirmed May 15 by the Judicial Nominating Commission. Dickson, a 26-year justice, replaces Randall Shepard, whose 25-year term as chief justice had been the nation’s longest.

The change in leadership accompanies the pending retirement of one, and perhaps two, longtime justices and unprecedented change in the court’s makeup.

DicksonBrent Dickson became chief justice May 15. He will face mandatory retirement before his term ends.

Mark Massa was appointed in March to replace Shepard. Two years prior, Steven David was named to the court to replace 14-year justice Theodore Boehm. Justice Frank Sullivan Jr., who’s been on the court nearly 19 years, announced he will retire this summer. The court’s remaining veteran, Justice Robert D. Rucker, indicated he’s undecided whether he will run for retention in November after 13 years on the Supreme Court.

Rucker joined David and Massa in endorsing Dickson to serve as chief justice. But Rucker also hinted at his uncertainty about staying on the bench in his comments to the commission.

“With upheaval in our ranks … maybe more upheaval to come,” Rucker said, Dickson “has been that steady hand, that visionary, if you will, who has done a magnificent job.”

Dickson will face mandatory retirement when he turns 75 in July 2016, before his five-year term as chief expires. He said after his selection that he has made no decision whether he will retire before then.

Should Rucker step aside, David would be the senior justice when Dickson retires.

Judicial appointment expert Charles Geyh, associate dean for research and John F. Kimberling Professor of Law at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said Dickson’s leadership will be critical.

“I think that this is a somewhat precarious time in the history of the state Supreme Court in the limited sense that Chief Justice Shepard had a long and stable tenure,” Geyh said.

Shepard left the court in good health and one of the most respected judiciaries in the country, Geyh said, and he expects Dickson to maintain a steady course.

Dickson said as much during his appearance before the Judicial Nominating Commission.

He credited Shepard for nurturing a civil atmosphere on the court and said he wished to continue that tone and court programs that Shepard championed and developed during his tenure as chief.

“I’d like to keep things moving as they have been,” Dickson said after his selection. “Our employees needed to know civility was going to reign.” He said he hadn’t planned to run, but a growing number of voices persuaded him.

Dickson has written and spoken often on the importance of fostering civility among attorneys, and when he spoke to the commission, it was the trait he said was most important in a chief.

“No. 1 is collegial behavior and judicial temperament,” he said. He stressed the importance of justices being agreeable when they disagree, and he said the justices maintained an open-door environment in which colleagues might encourage one another to moderate the tone of a particularly harsh draft.

Scathing dissents can “have a subtle effect on how (justices) interact with each other,” he said.

Geyh said that with four or fewer years as chief, Dickson is unlikely to leave an imprint on the court that can be measured against Shepard’s quarter-century.

“In the larger scheme of things, I think this is a sensible pick that isn’t going to create a ripple effect,” Geyh said. “The wait-and-see moment is who comes on the court next.

“The complexion of the court will change in some fairly significant ways, and that will affect how they do business,” he said. One of those ways could be a shift from the court’s traditionally apolitical approach to doing business.

The transition, Geyh said, “is coming as more and more courts are under siege from political detractors. … Efforts to politicize the judiciary are more common. Judge Shepard had steadfastly resisted those.”

Geyh said that if a justice or future justice politicizes the court, it could be counterproductive and damage the court’s esteem, which maintained a relatively low profile under Shepard.

Charles GeyhGeyh

“The court hasn’t been in the crosshairs of political fights that have gotten (state supreme courts) in trouble in other states,” Geyh said. With another chief justice selection no more than four years off, those who will be frontrunners are those who build comity on the bench and inspire confidence in their fellow justices, he added.

“In many ways the judges who may well be interested in a chief justice position, if they are, the irony or the paradox is they can’t do the kinds of things politicians do to get a successful outcome for themselves,” he said.

The court could be composed of five Republican appointees if Rucker retires. He and Sullivan are the only Democratic appointees, and Gov. Mitch Daniels will appoint his third justice to fill Sullivan’s vacancy, and possibly a fourth if Rucker leaves.

But Geyh said one-party dominance is not necessarily a worrisome scenario. “To me, it depends on whether the participants in the process remain committed to the goals of a merit-selection system.

“Daniels has shown himself to be someone who is committed to that system,” he said. “It’s always an open question as to whether the next governor will see it the same way.”

During the chief justice selection process, Dickson’s colleagues offered their views of the qualities of a chief, and each praised Dickson’s leadership as he chaired the nominating commission as acting chief.

“It’s very well-deserved and not something that I would think of as a gold watch or a lifetime achievement award,” Massa said in recommending Dickson, who he called a consensus builder and thought leader.

Massa and others said Dickson also possessed the “small ‘P’ political skills” needed to be the public face of the court and represent the judiciary in the Legislature.

“As far as the immediate decision, what I would look for if I were you,” David told the commission, then leaned and stared with a sly smile across the table at Dickson. He called Dickson “the right fit.”

Rucker said the chief justice also acts as a chairman of the board of the state’s judiciary, and Dickson was ideally suited to do so.

Daniels praised Dickson’s selection.

“To me, the commission made the right and natural choice. Brent Dickson is universally respected and has earned the complete trust of his colleagues and lawyers statewide. Any other selection would have been a surprise.”•
 

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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT