ILNews

Indiana Judges Association: Legislative gridlock? Let the judges handle it

David J.
March 3, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Commentary


Now that Sen. Evan Bayh has apparently adopted the "Bill Polian" approach to political football (rest now for a later challenge), the term "gridlock" is becoming more common than "gridiron." The public spotlight glares even more disapprovingly upon Congress, if that is possible. Recent polls suggest that as much as 86 percent of the public feels Congress is "broken." The remaining 14 percent are presumably members of Congress and their staffs.

Overall, we citizens go about our daily lives oblivious to all this Beltway blustering. We have mortgages, kids, jobs (hopefully), and, most importantly, our local communities. But in the legislative branch, there is often no objective standard for success or failure. There is no practical leverage for legislatures to actually accomplish anything. There is no assembly line, no product orders to fill, no specific job duties to perform.

So when legislative battle lines are drawn, some of us are left wondering what the real reasons are.

Many purportedly wise commentators develop diatribe after diatribe about the lack of civility as the culprit. But if one looks more closely, it seems like there is often too much civility to get anything done. For example, U.S. Senate gridlock is often blamed on the mysterious practice of "holds," in which any senator (even a brand new one) can block or delay any action on a treaty, nomination, or legislation. According to the Library of Congress, no one knows how or when this practice was started, but it is derived from the unwritten tradition of "senatorial courtesy" honored by every president since George Washington.

Well, the "courtesy" every senator enjoys is actually a strategic weapon. One senator recently held up the nominations of dozens of presidential appointees to gain White House attention to award some federal programs to the senator's home state. In the 1990s, there was a two-year battle of holds between opposing senators that blocked such unrelated topics as an incumbent Federal Trade Commission member, two federal judge nominees, and an education bill.

But Congress is hardly alone in its fitful charade. State legislatures all over the country share the same gridlock addiction. During the summer of 2009, the California state budget (eighth largest in the world) faced a catastrophic $27 billion deficit ... and the legislature would not come to an agreement. At the same time, the New York state legislature went into a complete one-month stalemate, even to the point of one party physically locking the other delegation out of the chamber as no action was taken on stacks of bills. Let's not forget the countless times in which our own Indiana General Assembly has been halted by a partisan "walkout" - something we judges call a "failure to appear."

So what to do?

There is one solution that has yet been tried. We judges do not have the luxury of "courtesy" or gridlock. Oh, there is a sure abundance of real civility in our courts, but there is also a bottom line: Get the case decided and move on. The legal system is the lifeblood of solving problems. Indiana annual case filings have reached 2 million, up 33 percent over the last 10 years. Despite increasing caseloads and dwindling resources, Indiana state judges are continuing to meet their obligations year in and year out.

So when legislative gridlock raises it ugly head, why not treat it like any other unsettled legal dispute? Why not let the courts solve it? Just consider:

* We have a proven track record of deciding issues on merits, not politics.

* We are trained in dispute resolution.

* We're on the job all year round.

* There are no vetoes.

* We cannot accept any money, meals, or tickets from anybody for any reason.

* We will not hold press conferences.

* We will not take polls on the issues.
 

Hon. 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  2. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  3. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  4. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  5. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

ADVERTISEMENT