A boys' club?

September 17, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

This post was written by IL managing editor Elizabeth Brockett.

Indiana still remains one of two states – the other being Idaho – that has no women justices. None.

Gov. Mitch Daniels announced that Boone Circuit Judge Steven David will succeed Justice Theodore Boehm on the Indiana Supreme Court. Nothing against Judge David, but what about diversity and the court looking like the people it serves?

Our population is 50.7 percent female in Indiana and nationwide by U.S. Census Bureau 2009 estimates. You’d think there’d be at least one woman – if not more – already on the court.

So, what are your thoughts about our Supreme Court continuing to be all male … is it a boys’ club?


 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Maybe... Maybe Not
    It's true that I'd like to see Indiana with a female justice. However, Governor Daniels should not have picked a woman solely because of a gender imbalance in the court. Judge David will make an excellent justice, and the fact that he is not a woman will not somehow make him less wise. When the governor is presented with a top three, the best of which is a woman, I have no doubts that he will choose her. Until then, gender is not a sufficient criteria by itself.
  • irrelevant
    I totally oppose this kind of affirmative action head counting observation. Seek qualified judges and leave the demographics to statisticians. I'll make this comment anonymous since apparently lawyer free speech just aint what it used to be.

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT