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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  2. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

  3. Oops, I meant discipline, not disciple. Interesting that those words share such a close relationship. We attorneys are to be disciples of the law, being disciplined to serve the law and its source, the constitutions. Do that, and the goals of Magna Carta are advanced. Do that not and Magna Carta is usurped. Do that not and you should be disciplined. Do that and you should be counted a good disciple. My experiences, once again, do not reveal a process that is adhering to the due process ideals of Magna Carta. Just the opposite, in fact. Braveheart's dying rebel (for a great cause) yell comes to mind.

  4. It is not a sign of the times that many Ind licensed attorneys (I am not) would fear writing what I wrote below, even if they had experiences to back it up. Let's take a minute to thank God for the brave Baron's who risked death by torture to tell the government that it was in the wrong. Today is a career ruination that whistleblowers risk. That is often brought on by denial of licenses or disciple for those who dare speak truth to power. Magna Carta says truth rules power, power too often claims that truth matters not, only Power. Fight such power for the good of our constitutional republics. If we lose them we have only bureaucratic tyranny to pass onto our children. Government attorneys, of all lawyers, should best realize this and work to see our patrimony preserved. I am now a government attorney (once again) in Kansas, and respecting the rule of law is my passion, first and foremost.

  5. I have dealt with more than a few I-465 moat-protected government attorneys and even judges who just cannot seem to wrap their heads around the core of this 800 year old document. I guess monarchial privileges and powers corrupt still ..... from an academic website on this fantastic "treaty" between the King and the people ... "Enduring Principles of Liberty Magna Carta was written by a group of 13th-century barons to protect their rights and property against a tyrannical king. There are two principles expressed in Magna Carta that resonate to this day: "No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." "To no one will We sell, to no one will We deny or delay, right or justice." Inspiration for Americans During the American Revolution, Magna Carta served to inspire and justify action in liberty’s defense. The colonists believed they were entitled to the same rights as Englishmen, rights guaranteed in Magna Carta. They embedded those rights into the laws of their states and later into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution ("no person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.") is a direct descendent of Magna Carta's guarantee of proceedings according to the "law of the land." http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/

ADVERTISEMENT