ILNews

Eliminating judges’ mandatory retirement to get hearing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A bill to eliminate mandatory retirement at age 75 for Indiana Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges will be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

Senate Bill 124 removes the language requiring retirement at 75 and makes no other changes. The bill would not apply to current members of the courts; Article 7, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution states: “Every such justice and judge shall retire at the age specified by statute in effect at the commencement of his current term.”

The committee also will hear:

  • Police text message searches: SB 156 would prohibit a police officer from taking information from a cell phone and retaining it as evidence pending trial for a violation of the law concerning typing, transmitting, or reading a text message while operating a motor vehicle without a warrant or probable cause to believe that the device was used to commit a crime;
  • Felon DNA database: SB 245 would require people arrested on a felony charge to submit a DNA sample for the Indiana DNA database. The bill provides for the expungement of a DNA sample for people cleared of felony charges;
  • Deputy AGs in D.C.: SB 36 would allow the attorney general to employ deputies in Washington, D.C., to monitor federal legislation and for other purposes; and
  • Judicial nominating: SB 103 would provide that the nonattorney members of the Judicial Nominating Commission be appointed by the governor from a list of recommended candidates submitted by House and Senate leaders of both parties. Those appointments currently are made by the governor alone. SB 103 also would reduce the time allowed a governor to appoint a Supreme Court justice or Court of Appeals judge from 60 days to 30 days.

The committee will meet at 9 a.m. Wednesday in Room 130 of the Statehouse.
 

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. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT