Unique situation for Gov. Daniels

August 12, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Gov. Mitch Daniels might not make the most appointments to our state’s appellate courts while in office, but today he finds himself in a pretty interesting position. He’ll be only the second governor to have appointed someone to all three of Indiana’s appellate courts.

In 2007, he chose Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Cale Bradford, and Judge Elaine Brown in 2008. This year, he’ll select Indiana Supreme Court Justice Theodore Boehm’s replacement, as well as the next Indiana Tax Court judge. Judge Thomas Fisher announced he’s stepping down Jan. 1, 2011.

We’re currently waiting for his decision as to who the next justice will be. The Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission selected Boone Circuit Judge Steven David, Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly, and Bingham McHale attorney Karl Mulvaney as finalists. Justice Boehm leaves the bench Sept. 30.

Now, Gov. Daniels will be able to leave his legacy on the state’s Tax Court, created in 1986. Judge Fisher has been the only judge to sit on that court. He was appointed by Gov. Robert Orr, the only other governor to have appointed someone to all three appellate courts. Two of his appointments are still on the Supreme Court: Justice Brent Dickson and Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard.

As far as current appellate judges, Daniels is beaten so far in the number of appointments made by Govs. Frank O’Bannon and Evan Bayh. The majority of appellate judges currently serving were appointed by them. But, there’s still plenty of time before Daniels’ term is up for some other judges to decide to step down.

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