ILNews

Interviews for COA spot start today

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Judicial Nominating Commission has started interviewing for a future opening on the Indiana Court of Appeals.

This afternoon, the seven-member commission began interviewing eight candidates for the seat currently occupied by Judge Patrick D. Sullivan, who retires in August. Interviews are scheduled from 3 to 6 p.m. and will resume with another 12 interviews Tuesday morning.

Candidates being interviewed today are Susan E. Boatright, juvenile division supervisor at the Marion County Public Defender Agency; Briane M. House with ProLiance Energy; Marion Superior Judge Robyn L. Moberly, Marion Superior Judge William E. Young; Robert L. Hartley, Locke Reynolds in Indianapolis; Marion Superior Judge Cynthia J. Ayers; Marion Superior Judge Kenneth H. Johnson; and Pendleton attorney Bryce D. Owens.

Interviews between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. Tuesday are Marion County Chief Public Defender David E. Cook; Marion Superior Judge Cale J. Bradford; Donald D. Levenhagen, with Cohen & Malad in Indianapolis; Randall C. Head, Tippecanoe Prosecutor's Office; Lafayette attorney David A. Locke; Hamilton Superior Judge William J. Hughes; Marion Superior Judge Gary L. Miller; West Lafayette attorney Rebecca A. Trent; Peter A. Bisbecos, Indiana Family and Social Services Administration; Hamilton Superior Judge J. Richard Campbell; Marion Superior Judge Reuben B. Hill; and Indianapolis attorney William R. Fatout.

By mid-week, the commission expects to announce a shorter list of candidates for second interviews. Read this week ;s Indiana Lawyer Daily to learn more about the interviews and who will be back for the second round of questions.
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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT