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. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. If the end result is to simply record the spoke word, then perhaps some day digital recording may eventually be the status quo. However, it is a shallow view to believe the professional court reporter's function is to simply report the spoken word and nothing else. There are many aspects to being a professional court reporter, and many aspects involved in producing a professional and accurate transcript. A properly trained professional steno court reporter has achieved a skill set in a field where the average dropout rate in court reporting schools across the nation is 80% due to the difficulty of mastering the necessary skills. To name just a few "extras" that a court reporter with proper training brings into a courtroom or a deposition suite; an understanding of legal procedure, technology specific to the legal profession, and an understanding of what is being said by the attorneys and litigants (which makes a huge difference in the quality of the transcript). As to contracting, or anti-contracting the argument is simple. The court reporter as governed by our ethical standards is to be the independent, unbiased individual in a deposition or courtroom setting. When one has entered into a contract with any party, insurance carrier, etc., then that reporter is no longer unbiased. I have been a court reporter for over 30 years and I echo Mr. Richardson's remarks that I too am here to serve.

  3. A competitive bid process is ethical and appropriate especially when dealing with government agencies and large corporations, but an ethical line is crossed when court reporters in Pittsburgh start charging exorbitant fees on opposing counsel. This fee shifting isn't just financially biased, it undermines the entire justice system, giving advantages to those that can afford litigation the most. It makes no sense.

  4. "a ttention to detail is an asset for all lawyers." Well played, Indiana Lawyer. Well played.

  5. I have a appeals hearing for the renewal of my LPN licenses and I need an attorney, the ones I have spoke to so far want the money up front and I cant afford that. I was wondering if you could help me find one that takes payments or even a pro bono one. I live in Indiana just north of Indianapolis.

ADVERTISEMENT