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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT