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

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 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