The final 2 interviews

September 27, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Michelle Baldwin
Michelle Baldwin told commission members about her varied background, including how she went off on her own to represent clients on tax matters and her current work focusing on the energy industry clients and tax incentives. She discussed her experience on medical licensing issues for pharmacies and pharmacists, and talked about the importance of having those review boards in place. She discussed the importance of how the Tax Court must follow statutes and also make sure people understand why the statutes were enacted. Someone within the Tax Court acting as a legislative liaison might be a beneficial function in helping lawmakers understand what proposed legislation might mean for taxpayers. Baldwin also discussed work on soldiers’ right areas, and noted that she’s seen both sides of tax issues in a way she think would allow her to be impartial and be a good tax court judge.

Thomas Ewbank
The grandson of former Indiana Supreme Court Justice Lewis who served in the early 20th century, Ewbank talked about his longtime practice that has involved inheritance tax work since the late 1960s and how this could be a capstone to his legal career. However, he’d only be able to serve eight years because of the mandatory retirement age of 75 for state appellate judges. He talked about how important ADR is to help courts, and also noted that the tax court judge could be influential in helping the legislature understand and clear up ambiguities in proposed legislation.

The seven-member Judicial Nominating Commission began deliberating behind closed doors just before 3:30 p.m. on who to name as semi-finalists. Once members reach a decision, they will hold a public vote on who to bring back for second interviews.

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