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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT