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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT