ILNews

Indiana Judges Association: Protect 'We (All) the People'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IJA-Dreyer-DavidIn 1947, 16 German judges were tried and convicted for crimes against humanity, that is, enforcing Nazi racial purity laws supporting the Holocaust. In 2010, three Iowa judges were attacked and removed for striking down a same-sex marriage ban, that is, what some supporters call a marriage purity law. All these judges were guilty of doing their job. So what’s the difference? Well, the Nazi judges were following what they felt was required by the German government, and to some extent the German people, regardless of the consequences. But the Iowa judges were guilty of doing what they felt was required by the law, regardless of the consequences.

Afterwards, Iowa law professor Todd Pettys told the Wall Street Journal, “The notion of throwing someone out on the basis of one ruling is entirely in tension with all other considerations that went into coming up with Iowa’s policy [of keeping electoral politics out of the judiciary] . . . Given this, you’d think that the standard for rejecting a judge would be pretty extreme, like misconduct or a pattern of blatantly disregarding the rule of law. . . There’s just no misbehavior [here] of any kind.” So has electoral politics seeped into the American judiciary?

In 1849, a South Bend state trial judge named Elisha Egbert freed former slave David Powell and his family who were tracked down by their Kentucky “owners.” He interpreted a 1793 law to allow only damages for runaway slaves, not possession. If Judge Egbert was facing slave-owning voters, would he have been thrown out? A year later, Congress passed the Federal Fugitive Slave Act, and Northern judges everywhere followed the law to return former slaves to former masters. What would Judge Egbert have done under the new law? Presumably, he would have done his job – interpreted the law and followed it. If he was still in office.

Unfortunately for all Americans, a new Brennan Center for Justice report entitled “The New Politics of Judicial Elections” identifies a “grave and growing” challenge to impartial consideration of judges and the emergence of several “super spenders,” like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But is this new? Under accusatory euphemisms like “activist” or “legislating,” there is a discouraging record of judicial challenges based more upon a partisan single interest scorecard than the rule of law:

In 1996, Tennessee Justice Penny White was rejected for just concurring in a unanimous decision reversing a death penalty conviction – three California justices were earlier removed because of death penalty opposition.

In Kansas, Chief Justice Lawton R. Nuss and three colleagues recently survived strong opposition (abortion).

In Colorado, Chief Justice Mary Mullarky retired this year rather than face an organization called “Clear The Bench.” (taxes, redistricting, eminent domain)

In Illinois, Chief Justice Thomas Kilbride vigorously fought and survived opposition based not upon any ruling, but seeking a more partisan court for upcoming political redistricting. Even local cynics conceded any new judge might still be independent. (“It’s conceivable that [the court] would do what it ought to do.” – Illinois official Dawn Clark Netsch)

“The business of the law is to make sense of the confusion of what we call human life, “said poet Archibald MacLeish, himself a lawyer, “to reduce it to order but at the same time to give it possibility, scope, even dignity.” This could be a standard by which to judge a judge – not whether we agree on a single case, or to bully an expedient political point. Bob Vander Plaats, the Iowa opposition leader, declared, “It’s ‘we the people,’ not ‘we the courts.’” But according to the Founding Fathers, he is wrong. The plain words of the Constitution give power to the people – and deliberately balance that power with the rule of law. So it is more accurate to say, “We all the people (protected by the law all the time),” not “we the (majority of) people (only in one election on one issue).”

What can be done? Nothing. In a democracy, no law should stop these “super spenders” and single-issue thinkers. But judges who forfeit their independence for short-term considerations may face long-term consequences. Just ask the German judges. Overall, there has been no diminishing effect on the courage and dedication of our judges to do what is right rather than do what polls show. But there will always be good judges who will be removed, who will get thrown out for the wrong reason, or no reason. Regardless, the Republic stays strong because judges stay strong. Just ask the Powell family.•
__________

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 in this column are the author’s

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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT