ILNews

Governor has met with Supreme Court finalists

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels wants to move quickly on appointing the state’s next Indiana Supreme Court justice. He has already met with the three finalists who are vying for that position.

The Judicial Nominating Commission on Feb. 22 interviewed seven semi-finalists and selected Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Cale Bradford, Indiana Criminal Justice Institute Director Mark Massa and Indiana Judicial Center Director Jane Seigel as finalists. One will be chosen to succeed Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, who is retiring March 23.

On Wednesday, the chief justice sent a six-page letter to the governor detailing the commission’s selection of finalists and each person’s background and experience. The letter concludes by saying each nominee is someone of “such high caliber that they would be a lasting credit to the state’s high court.”

The letter is a typical procedural step, one that officially starts the clock on the governor’s 60-day timetable to make a decision.

Daniels told reporters Friday morning that he talked with each of the finalists. He plans to make a decision “way ahead of the deadline” and is moving quickly, but wants to make sure he is being thoughtful about the process. When asked about the court’s gender diversity, Daniels said the importance of choosing a woman is a factor but one that doesn’t trump other factors such as merit and judicial philosophy.

“I would love nothing more, in this context and many more for that matter, to appoint women, and minorities likewise,” Daniels said. “But it’s a tie-breaker. In the case of a job this important, it comes down below the qualities that I mentioned. We’ve got to have the best qualified judge, one with the best temperament, and I want to see someone who will respect the separations of power and boundaries of judicial decision-making.”

Shepard’s term as chief justice expires on Sunday. From then until his retirement, he will have the title of acting chief justice. After Shepard’s retirement, Justice Brent Dickson, the justice who will then have the most seniority, will take over as acting chief until the Judicial Nominating Commission chooses a successor following Daniels’ appointment.

 

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT