IBA also not happy with Gov

September 23, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
First the Indiana State Bar Association issued a statement saying Gov. Mitch Daniels’ comments in the press regarding the “voter ID” decision last week weren’t “helpful in advancing the appropriate respect for the courts and the judicial process.”

Now, the Indianapolis Bar Association has released a statement from its president chastising the public criticism of the court. Its basic message: public criticism of judges has no place in the judicial process.

In the statement, IBA president James Voyles says, “As citizens, we have the right to be heard and to challenge rulings by judicial process. Indeed, our legal system is structured to permit judicial review to higher courts to afford litigants the ability to seek redress for unfavorable rulings. The court of judicial process is the appropriate forum for such relief; the court of public opinion is not.”

The statement goes on to say that those unhappy with the ruling should take up the appropriate legal process for relief instead of going to the media “to lodge personal attacks on the judges who are charged with the difficult task of preserving our constitutional rights.”

Finally, Voyles says “Regardless of personal opinion as to the ruling, that our judicial officers and our judicial process should command a greater respect goes unsaid. We enjoy freedoms and rights that many do not, and with that comes responsibility to respect the courts and those that take the oath to protect the integrity of the office of the judiciary.”

I can’t recall in the few years I’ve been working for the Indiana Lawyer seeing any bar association commenting publicly like this on reaction to a ruling. They’re obviously coming to the defense of the judges and trying to give another point of view on this topic. It’s too bad the judges who made the ruling can’t speak; I’m dying to know what they have to say about this controversy.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • I\'ll tell you what they think - the same thing the entire legal community thinks - mitch is an idiot and completely overstepped his bounds on this one. he is completely out of touch. he\'s shown his disregard for the judiciary one too many times. and he went to law school? huh.

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
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT