SCOTUS visits fascinating

April 8, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Reporter Michael W. Hoskins wrote this post.

You can always expect a legal community showing when one of the nation’s top jurists visits. That was the case Wednesday when Chief Justice John Roberts made his way to the Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis.

He was the fifth justice from the Supreme Court of the United States to visit the school in some capacity during the past decade, the third since 2002 as part of the ongoing James P. White lecture series. The others were: Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 2002; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2007, and now the chief justice. Justice Anthony Kennedy spoke at the law school dedication in 2001, while Justice Samuel Alito visited in September 2007.

In my own experience, I’ve managed to see and hear four justices speak since moving to Indiana six years ago – Justices Ginsburg, Alito, O’Connor, and now Chief Justice Roberts.

Justice Ginsburg focused on the historical role of women in the courts and Chief Justice Roberts focused on the high court’s historical evolution in the past century. Justice Alito came as part of a different event to discuss the sometimes-stressed relationships between Congress and the courts. Justice O’Connor spoke about globalization, saying, “Understanding international law is no longer a specialty, it is a duty. We will rely increasingly on foreign and international law in resolving domestic legal questions.

Personally, I heard her speak last year at a St. Joseph Bar Association event in South Bend about judicial independence and merit selection– a topic that she’s passionately focused on in her retirement.

While I’ve not personally witnessed Justice John Paul Stevens speak, he is a regular visitor at the 7th Circuit Conference and Bar Association annual meetings and often talks about his experiences and the past year’s happenings. Last year, he wasn’t able to attend the event in Indianapolis.

All were interesting and fascinating events to attend, with a high-ranking roster of Who’s Who from the Hoosier legal community at both state and federal levels. But by comparison, Chief Justice Roberts seemed to offer less substance than those in the past. It seemed to be more of a show than a substantive speech. Growing up in Indiana, Chief Justice Roberts spent little time addressing the current conditions or more pressing issues of the time as some of his colleagues have done.

He also touched on his Hoosier roots, and it was noted that his first real legal job was as a summer clerkship at Indianapolis firm Ice Miller.

Obviously, neither he nor the other visiting active justices could talk about specific cases or legal issues they might someday face. But the Q-and-A session following the lecture brought some interesting tidbits, as he talked about his Midwestern roots and how that impacts the courts, his thoughts about possibly sitting in designation at the trial court level, and even a point about the possible retirement of longtime Justice Stevens, who could soon announce whether he plans to retire this year. That latter point was that Justice Stevens’ retirement could be happening “soon,” though there was no expansion on that.

One of the most intriguing questions came from U.S. Judge Sarah Evans Barker in the Southern District of Indiana, who asked the chief justice about whether he’d ever consider presiding over a case at the lower level.

“To be fair, I wouldn’t do it in a million years,” he said, noting that his predecessor had done it.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist presided over a Virginia case and was later reversed by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. But the chief justice said what bothered his predecessor the most wasn’t the fact that he was reversed but that the appellate court had done it in a per curiam decision so no one had signed their name to it.

If he were ever to sit in designation at the District level, Chief Justice Roberts said he’d want a civil case and not a criminal case. From his appellate experience, he’d want to avoid sentencing and mandatory minimum sentences that he viewed as “gut-wrenching” decisions for a judge to decide.

Still, despite what any particular justice talks about during their presentations, it’s always a pleasure to hear from someone who sits or has sat at the nation’s highest court.
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
  1. Hello currently just withdrew from laporte county drug court and now I have lost the woman I love which also was in drugcourt and was put in jail without a,lawyer presentfor her own safety according to the judge and they told her she could have a hearing in two weeks and now going on 30days and still in jail no court date and her public defender talks like he,s bout to just sell her up the river.

  2. I just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  3. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  4. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  5. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

ADVERTISEMENT