Interviews over, now wait begins

July 30, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

From IL reporter Mike Hoskins:

JUDGE ROBYN MOBERLY: Though she’s proud of handling some of the most complex and varied litigation throughout the state, Judge Moberly said she’s most proud of the energy and initiative she’s put into the state’s Family Court Project, which she’s been a part of since it started almost a decade ago. “One reason I mention that, not only because it’s a passion of mine, is that I want to illustrate the possibilities of what support from the Supreme Court can do for local communities.”

The burgeoning number of pro se litigants is one of the biggest concerns she sees the judiciary facing, and one idea would be for the justices to implement a public law librarian program modeled after how the court recruits teachers to educate students about the Third Branch. Judge Moberly also explained the importance of managing the inevitable statewide court system changes, and how statewide funding is a significant point to consider. She said regional funding might be a step in that direction, and something that everyone can more easily agree on.

Judge Moberly discussed her multiple Supreme Court assignments on disciplinary cases, media matters, and the child support guideline revisions. She also reflected on her views on precedent when there are conflicting Court of Appeal panel rulings, that the doctrinal basis of each case and issue must be analyzed, she said.

JUDGE STEVEN NATION: Judge Nation was the only of the nine semi-finalists that commission members almost didn’t have enough time to ask any questions of, as he spent almost his entire 30-minute interview addressing the submitted two-part question. As far as his biggest accomplishment, he told members about how he wants to be remembered for treating everyone in his court with respect.

The judge discussed how the courts could better reach out to at-risk attorneys on mentoring and tutoring, and he also suggested changes in how judges are designated to do complex litigation. Senior judges could be used to handle the more regular judicial tasks while the active judge handles the more complicated matter. He also suggested expanding the use of interlocutory appeals, as well as getting attorneys more involved in the overall process in different ways.

KIPLEY DREW: She delved into her background that touches on a wide variety of issues, from evicting college residents, to a multi-million software contract, to how daycare operators might have to be aware of a decree or protective order when someone comes to pick up a child. Drew praised the court reform efforts on judicial education and said she’d like to see more outreach opportunities to enhance the public perception of the state judiciary. She talked about justices having to maintain an extra level of discretion to avoid the perception of impropriety, and that while politics shouldn’t be a consideration a justice must be aware of potential ripple effects from any decision.

One commission member asked Drew about her ability to not be influenced by her husband's job clerking for Indiana Court of Appeals Chief Judge John Baker. She said it wouldn't be an issue.

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. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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)

  4. 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)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT