ILNews

Indiana Judges Association: Judging from the mountaintop

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IJA-Dreyer-DavidI have a confession to make. I have always been fond of the wigs that English judges wear. What better way to define the role and independence of the judiciary than to appear oddly physically different? Of course, all British barristers wear wigs, but judges’ wigs are a lot larger, grander and more regal. If judges wore wigs in the United States, there might be a marked increase, I say, in public confidence in our courts. Hopefully, it would not be outweighed by any marked increase in public satire, but it could not be any worse than the judge shows now on daytime TV. The public always needs to understand that courts are serious and judges are different. More importantly, it is necessary to understand why.

We hear a lot these days about “judicial independence,” and how we should pick who our judges are. On one hand, all of us lawyers understand the significance of keeping courts free from outside pressure – from legislatures, other elected officials, and special interests – and ensuring a process that at least appears fair. On the other hand, Americans are suspicious of any power not accountable to the people. According to Federal Judicial Center researchers, this dilemma is as old as the Union. “A belief in judicial independence exists in the United States alongside an equally strong belief in democratic accountability. … Judicial independence means different things to different people. … It is perhaps most important in enabling judges to protect individual rights even in the face of popular opposition.”

But if judges should be “independent,” does that mean they are somehow more special than other people? Politics makes strange bedfellows, but judges cannot even flirt. So, other government branches sometimes see judges as arrogant, aloof or too powerful. In Michigan, for example, legislators have sought to transfer jurisdiction of all lawsuits against the state to its Court of Appeals where more political pressure can presumably be applied. The little secret about judges is that they are no different than anybody, although required to make weighty decisions about everybody. A Broadway play called “The Mountaintop,” is now coming to the rest of the country, including Indianapolis. It is an unsettling portrayal of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a real, conflicted, flawed person, not the historical social justice hero. It means to irk the audience into realizing how the courage to act, and the difficulty, is the same for all of us, no matter who we are.

Yes, I am a person just like anybody else, but my job declares that I am different. Ever since I have been a lawyer, people often treat me apart from others. When I became a judge almost 18 years ago, some of my best friends insisted on calling me “Judge” because they now felt funny calling me “Dave.” Judges are colleagues of fellow attorneys, not supervisors, although judges have a unique obligation and responsibility to run the system. Temper and toughness are not a natural part of my personality. But even I have decided to yell at attorneys (on rare occasion) because it was required to maintain order, professionalism, fairness and enforce the law.

Hence, my attraction to the English wigs. The separation between me and my judicial role would be much easier to manage. I would be seen as the guy with a funny wig, not Dave who made an unpopular call. Since England already uses wigs to define judicial work, what should American judges wear? Here is a list and some thoughts:

• The helmet of the court’s closest National League Football team. Since the NFL is the most lucrative athletic organization in world history, this would probably draw unwanted claims of corporate compromise.

• Baseball cap turned backwards. Although this is an attractive option to inspire the Millennial generation to believe in our legal system, it is probably a net loss of confidence among the general population.

• Bishops miter. Besides risking First Amendment issues regarding religion, it would just look too funny.

• Construction worker hardhat. Considering what judges do in the courtroom, this is clearly the most logical, but may not be taken seriously.

• A tasteful mask. Keeping one’s face hidden may create a good image and an accurate depiction of a truly independent judge. But how would we know what judges are thinking, are they bored, are they amused, are they getting it?

“Judicial independence,” Justice Stephen Breyer once said, “is in part a state of mind, a matter of expectation, habit, and belief among not just judges, lawyers, and legislators, but millions of people.” A 1996 Harris poll showed 84 percent of U.S. citizens are against political influence in court cases. That would indeed total millions of people. The challenge of judges is to rule from the mountaintop, but never leave the village. Only when judges are invisible can there be true judicial independence. In the meantime, what matters is the process – and the goodwill of our profession to keep trying.•

__________

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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT