ILNews

Indiana Judges Association: Choose between the good and the good

David J. Dreyer
June 9, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Commentary

Dear Gov. Daniels:

I am not applying for the Indiana Supreme Court to replace my friend Justice Ted Boehm. But I am writing to urge you to appoint a Notre Dame Law School alum. Why? Well, Notre Dame is the only Indiana law school without an Indiana Supreme Court justice. Although some football foes would prefer it that way, there is much to merit a Notre Dame appointee. After all, it is consistently the highest ranked law school in Indiana (#22 in 2010 U.S. News and World Report). More importantly, it has a history and mission that promotes the qualities any governor would want in a Supreme Court justice.

But first, an historical snapshot to see where our Indiana Supreme Court has been and not been:

• 1 female

• 2 African-Americans

• 102 white men, mostly from Indianapolis or central Indiana (Governor, as one white guy from Indianapolis to another, I am sure you would agree that this is not all it is cracked up to be)

• Most law school graduates: IU-Bloomington

• Justice Amos Wade Jackson was admitted to the bar in 1925 while still a senior at Hanover College

• Justice Silas Coffey’s law studies were interrupted by the Civil War, but he continued to lug Blackstone’s Commentaries to study along the way

• Justices George Henley and Isadore Levine (male) served about a month (1955) until someone could be found who really wanted the job

But among so many badly needed diverse demographics for this appointment, a Notre Dame grad should be among the highest. As an alumnus of Our Lady, I respectfully call your attention to her commitment to educate “a different kind of lawyer.” While I presume you always wish lawyers were a lot different than they are, this aspiration is not a maverick ideal. It seeks to “bridge the worlds of theory and practice, facilitating the interchange of information between the academy and the corridors of political and legal power.”

A judge from Notre Dame will always raise central questions about the “relationship between law and morality, the distribution of power between the state and other social institutions, and the importance of identifying universal norms of justice.” Notre Dame lawyers are taught that the law should be used for the common good over selfish interest. Accordingly, a Notre Dame Supreme Court justice would be someone who seeks to reconcile, engage, renew ideals, and search for ways to apply the law as a living balance between what is written and the conscience of the community.

In fact, this kind of judging endeavor is described by former Justice David Souter in his recent Harvard Law School commencement address: “… the tensions that are the stuff of judging in so many hard constitutional cases are, after all, the products of our aspirations to value liberty, as well as order, and fairness and equality …. And the very opportunity for conflict between the good and the good reflects our confidence that a way may be found to resolve it ….”

What we need in Justice Boehm’s replacement is not just someone who is well educated, or from any particular demographic, but someone who can really see the values and meanings “between the good and the good” in those hard cases. As a trial judge, I often have cases in which both sides are “good” under legal and practical analyses – but the essence of judging is finding the intangible way that not only shows the right door, but how to open it as well.

In fact, maybe what we need to replace Ted Boehm is a person like Ted Boehm – not necessarily a white Indianapolis guy with a Harvard degree, but someone who has built a brilliant intellect by living a life of wonder, curiosity, adventure, and public service. As we all know, he not only ran large law firms and corporations, but he also raised four daughters, and led the thinking and dreaming behind the creation of the best civic sports model in the world. The work of the Indiana Sports Corp. has combined the best values of competition with community development and has shown what it means to find solutions “between the good and the good.”

Overall, we may not need an actual Notre Dame grad to replace Justice Boehm, but we do need someone with the qualities and character that Notre Dame and our other fine Indiana law schools all espouse and Justice Boehm embodies. We need someone whose thinking as a person fully informs their life as a lawyer. We need Supreme Court justices like we have now: who care, who listen, and who will still come in every day ready for work regardless of what the media or any other branch of government says about them. We need justices who are up to the constitutional challenge when, as Justice Souter says, “we cannot share every intellectual assumption that formed the minds of those who framed the charter, but can still address the constitutional uncertainties the way they must have envisioned, by relying on reason that respects the word the Framers wrote, by facing facts, and by seeking to understand their meaning for the living.”

And if that includes a Notre Dame law grad for the first time in Indiana history, all the better for the diversity of the court. Good luck.•

__________

Judge David J. Dreyer has been a judge for the Marion Superior Court since 1997. He is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and Notre Dame Law School. He is a former board member of the Indiana Judges Association. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author.

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. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT