ILNews

Editorial: Stalemate leaves constituents without a voice

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Editorial

There’s a lot of shouting and political posturing going on, but we’re not at all certain there’s much in the way of listening and compromising taking place.

On President’s Day, most all of Indiana’s House Democrats left the state for Urbana, Ill., to deny their Republican counterparts a quorum with which to do business.

The stated objection at the time was a piece of legislation labeled “right to work,” which would prohibit requiring workers who are not union members to pay representation fees when unions and businesses negotiate agreements.

Republicans have said the legislation is off the table for the remainder of the session, but Democrats have since compiled a list of other pieces of legislation that they strenuously object to. Name calling ensued, and at this writing, Democrats said they wouldn’t return to the Statehouse on the next session day, Feb. 28.

The same thing is happening in Wisconsin, only in that state, it’s the Senate Democrats who have left home for Illinois. At issue there are state workers’ collective bargaining rights.

In both states, voters on both sides of the issues being so hotly contested have filled their statehouses to speak out for their positions.

We wish there was a lot more listening going on, as in politicians listening to the people trying to get their message out.

Many people have pointed out the obvious: that elections have consequences. In Indiana’s case, those who hold that opinion indicate that the House Democrats should come home and take their political lumps.

But we truly see no difference between what’s going on in Indiana now and what happened during the first two years of President Barack Obama’s presidency. Indiana’s Democrats left the state when they could affect no compromise on legislation they object to. In Washington, D.C., they have this little tool called a “filibuster.” From where we sit, it accomplished the same thing – the filibuster, or even the threat of it, brought the legislative process to a standstill.

In Indiana’s case, we have a budget to crank out during this legislative session, and we do not have the means to pay our elected officials to work overtime and complete it.

We’d like to see some indications that there’s actually talking and listening and therefore compromising taking place. In addition to the lawyers who serve as elected officials in the General Assembly, perhaps we need a few mediators to join them.•

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT