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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT