ILNews

Indiana Judges Association: Judges are good government partners

David J. Dreyer
January 30, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IJA-Dreyer-DavidDear Gov. Pence:

Congratulations on your election as Governor of Indiana and for a job well done. All Indiana judges look forward to serving with you and your administration in the coming years. As a lawyer, you appreciate the role of courts and judges. However, many of our citizens simply do not know what courts do and what a judge’s job really is.

Thomas Jefferson once said:

“I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.”

Some observers wonder if there is a deficit of “legal literacy” among our communities. A few years back, the National School Board Association publicly urged its members to learn more about the legal system and how schools operate within it. These days, there is even The Legal Literacy Project which seeks to educate non-lawyers about the laws that affect their lives. Overall, legal literacy can be defined as an elementary knowledge of laws and basic information about how the legal system works. Detailed expertise is not necessary, but a citizen needs legal literacy to properly evaluate one’s legal needs, fairly discern the issues of the day, or decide how to vote. All too often, the shtick of Judge Judy is the indelible image in people’s minds about courts.

And it is often surprising to us how often the general public and media presume that judges are just like other public officials. But as you know, Governor, we do not have political advisers, public opinion polls, press conferences or even photo ops. All we have is public confidence (hopefully), our partners in other branches of government and, of course, the law.

Overall, we are encouraged that you will always be supportive of judges’ limited role in government and appreciative of judges as good government partners. This may occasionally be problematic, especially when we disagree, and because we can never meet and discuss policy like the legislative branch. No, we are constitutional teammates, but we can’t audible plays, like Peyton Manning. Instead, we govern together in the time-honored adversary process – judges only get involved when people bring their problems to us. Believe me, there are plenty of them, every day, all year round. A trial court judge probably meets more citizens and solves more everyday problems than any other elected official. And he or she does it alone.

So in good faith and the spirit of optimism that should accompany the beginning of every governor’s term, we express our gratitude for your work to come and your understanding of the work of the courts. If you want, you can forward the notes below to anyone you think would benefit from becoming more legally literate.

1. Law is about people: As this column has shown before, every case involves people, no matter what. As someone else once said, that even includes corporations. The effects of a judge’s ruling affects people as individuals, employees, shareholders, doctors, patients, neighbors and sometimes state officials. But law is not politics and not policy – we judges do not announce personal positions or seek to get anything accomplished other than the law’s answer to the case before us.

2. Judges are people, too: There is nothing harder for people to understand than the fact that judges do not rule on the basis of preference. Sure, we like some lawyers better than others and feel more sympathetic to one party in a case sometimes. We even wish some laws were different on occasion. But those personal considerations mean nothing when we do our jobs. Really.

3. The judiciary is the “least dangerous branch”: As you know, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers to alleviate some concerns about the power of federal judges with lifetime appointments. He said that the courts have “no influence over either the sword or the purse . . . It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” Overall, that is still true – we judges rely on the other branches to make sure the laws are followed, rulings are enforced and the public continues to have confidence in all of us. Without that, we lose the rule of law.

We know you appreciate the chance to hear from judges about how to remain good government partners. We hope to be in touch through the appropriate channels – bar association events, public forums, law school presentations and columns like this. We look forward to hearing from you as well. Good luck, as we both carry on the people’s business.•

__________

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 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. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  2. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  3. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

  4. Dear Fan, let me help you correct the title to your post. "ACLU is [Left] most of the time" will render it accurate. Just google it if you doubt that I am, err, "right" about this: "By the mid-1930s, Roger Nash Baldwin had carved out a well-established reputation as America’s foremost civil libertarian. He was, at the same time, one of the nation’s leading figures in left-of-center circles. Founder and long time director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Baldwin was a firm Popular Fronter who believed that forces on the left side of the political spectrum should unite to ward off the threat posed by right-wing aggressors and to advance progressive causes. Baldwin’s expansive civil liberties perspective, coupled with his determined belief in the need for sweeping socioeconomic change, sometimes resulted in contradictory and controversial pronouncements. That made him something of a lightning rod for those who painted the ACLU with a red brush." http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/biographies/roger-baldwin-2/ "[George Soros underwrites the ACLU' which It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 "The creation of non-profit law firms ushered in an era of progressive public interest firms modeled after already established like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") and the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") to advance progressive causes from the environmental protection to consumer advocacy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_lawyering

  5. Mr. Foltz: Your comment that the ACLU is "one of the most wicked and evil organizations in existence today" clearly shows you have no real understanding of what the ACLU does for Americans. The fact that the state is paying out so much in legal fees to the ACLU is clear evidence the ACLU is doing something right, defending all of us from laws that are unconstitutional. The ACLU is the single largest advocacy group for the US Constitution. Every single citizen of the United States owes some level of debt to the ACLU for defending our rights.

ADVERTISEMENT