ILNews

Governor chooses Judge Steven David as next Supreme Court justice

Michael W. Hoskins
September 17, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Boone Circuit Judge Steven David will become the next Indiana Supreme Court justice, meaning the state’s highest court will remain without a woman.
david-steven
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels made the announcement at 10:30 a.m., choosing Judge David from three finalists that also included Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly and Karl Mulvaney, a partner at Bingham McHale in Indianapolis. Judge David succeeds Justice Theodore Boehm, who is retiring Sept. 30.

UPDATED:
Boone Circuit Judge Steven David will become the next Indiana Supreme Court justice.

Gov. Mitch Daniels made the announcement this morning (see video below), choosing Judge David to succeed retiring Justice Theodore R. Boehm who leaves the state’s highest court Sept. 30. The governor made the decision on Tuesday, selecting the longtime trial judge over Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly and Bingham McHale attorney Karl Mulvaney.



In making his selection, the governor said Judge David stood out for his distinguished 15 years on the trial bench, his past experience in business, and his longtime military legal career. The judge offered the clearest expression of commitment to proper restraint on the bench and respect for judicial decision-making boundaries.

“He will be a judge who interprets, rather than invents our laws,” Daniels said.

The governor said he would have “liked nothing more” than to name a woman to the court, taking Indiana off the list of being one of two nationally without a female justice. Diversity might have been used as a “tie-breaker,” but this wasn’t a tie, he said.

“My task was to find the best person on the merits, and I’m sure I did,” Daniels said. “Now the state is going to benefit from that for years to come.”

With this appointment, Judge David shifts the balance of the Supreme Court to three former judges – Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard served on the Vanderburgh Superior bench and Justice Robert Rucker served at the Indiana Court of Appeals. Justices Frank Sullivan, Brent Dickson, and the retiring Boehm came all came from the private sector.

A 1982 graduate of Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis, Judge David began on the Boone Circuit bench in 1995. He began his career in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps until the mid-1980s, when he began practicing in Columbus at law firm Cline King King & David before serving as corporate counsel for Mayflower Transit in Carmel.

Standing with his wife Cathryn –- who works at the Indiana State Bar Association –- this morning in the governor’s office, Judge David said this is a continuation of a lifetime priority of public service.

“This is a way for me to serve in a different way,” he said. “The lesson learned is it’s OK to dream. Hard work can pay off.”

This story will be updated in today’s Indiana Lawyer Daily.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  2. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  3. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  4. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  5. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

ADVERTISEMENT