ILNews

Editorial: In this war of words, will anyone win?

Editorial Indiana Lawyer
March 30, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Editorial

At more than 30 days and counting, at least at Indiana Lawyer deadline, we’re not sure what will cause the Democrats elected to the Indiana House of Representatives to return to their posts at the Statehouse.

There’s enough blame to go around for everyone in the legislative process, voters included, to have a share. Yes, we said voters. After all, we keep electing the majority of this cast of characters over and over again. It’s developed into an insane process, and a popular definition of insanity is when one keeps doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different outcome.

We’re sure the heated rhetoric isn’t helping at all. Note this example from the state leader of the Republican Party on the 31-day mark of the Democrats’ absence from the House:

“This is now your legacy, your footnote of failure.

“With your actions over the past 31 days – obstructing important pieces of legislation, like passing a balanced budget, cost of living adjustments for retired state employees and your constitutional duty on redistricting – you’ve branded the Democratic Party in Indiana far better than anything we could do,” said Indiana State Republican Party Chair Eric Holcomb.

We’re sure that only added fuel to the fire and increased the tensions that precipitated the Democrats leaving the state in the first place. Will such statements score points among longtime mainline party members? Certainly. Secure their continued support, with votes and monetary contributions? Most likely.

The other party hasn’t been particularly angelic in the rhetoric department, either. Calling Gov. Mitch Daniels’ plan to reform public education an attempt to “destroy” it was far from an attempt to curtail the argument. State Rep. Pat Bauer, D-South Bend, isn’t helping with statements like these: “Until the schemes to dismantle public education are resolved, we will continue to fight for the best possible education for Hoosier children.”

Last time we checked, dismantling public education wasn’t big on the Republicans list of things to do this session. But will statements like these from Bauer score points among longtime, mainline party members? Certainly. Secure their continued support, with votes and monetary contributions? Most likely.

We’ve heard of “No Labels,” (nolabels.org) which purports to foster a movement in which citizens who hail from a variety of political vantage points can put aside their political differences and come to consensus on some of the truly critical issues we face across the country.

We’d like to be a little less cynical and believe that a nation which fostered the Tea Party movement, a movement that sprung up quickly in response to the 2008 election cycle, can give attention to ideas such as these. It sounds remarkably sane: Put aside one’s petty political posturing and search with political opponents in an effort to find common ground to work on common problems. That would have to be much more efficient than the partisan stalemates that have become the order of the day at the state and national level.

At this writing, Indiana’s House Democrats are no closer to coming back to Indianapolis than they were when they left Indiana last month.

But also at this writing, we are one step closer to having an amendment that could make discrimination a part of our state’s constitution.

We’d like to introduce our legislators to the No Labels movement, but recognize that more than mere labels would have to be put aside in order for it to be effective.

We’re going to have to work on our cynicism before we can get our hopes up for that.•

--------------------

Opinions: Readers may offer opinions concerning Indiana Lawyer stories and other legal issues. Readers may respond immediately by viewing the “submissions” section on our website: www.theindianalawyer.com. We reserve the right to edit letters for space requirements and to reproduce letters on the IL website and online databases. Direct letters to editor Rebecca Collier at rcollier@ibj.com or 41 E. Washington St., Suite 200, Indianapolis, IN 46204.

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT