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 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

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. 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?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT