Finalists all have IU-Indy law degrees

August 2, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

It’s a good day for Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis. It can boast that the three finalists for the Indiana Supreme Court hold degrees from the school.

Six of the nine semi-finalists earned J.D.s from there. Considering we have four law schools in the state, and countless other law schools around the country, that’s a fact worth bragging about. The school even mentions it on the front page of their website.

That means all but one of the justices will have received their legal education in-state. Whoever is selected will replace Justice Theodore Boehm, who graduated from Harvard Law School. Justice Brent Dickson graduated from IU-Indy, Justice Rucker is a graduate of Valparaiso University School of Law, and Justice Frank Sullivan received his J.D. from Indiana University Maurer School of Law in Bloomington.

That leaves only Chief Justice Randall Shepard as having an out-of-state law degree. He graduated from Yale Law School.

Taking a quick look around at neighboring Supreme Courts, only Ohio has more in-state graduates. Based on their bios, all seven Ohio justices were educated there. Illinois and Michigan each have two out of their seven justices with out-of-state law degrees.

Interesting fact about the seven Wisconsin justices: their chief justice earned her J.D. from Indiana University and one justice has his from the University of Notre Dame law school. Another justice there has an undergraduate degree from DePauw University. That’s quite an Indiana connection on Wisconsin’s Supreme 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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT