ILNews

JNC’s justice candidate evaluation letter sent to governor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission sent its letter to Gov. Mitch Daniels Wednesday explaining the qualifications of justice finalists Hamilton Superior Judge Steven Nation, Tippecanoe Superior Judge Loretta Rush, and Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP partner Geoffrey Slaughter.

The commission selected the trio as finalists Aug. 8, and statute requires that it send a written evaluation of each nominee to the governor. Upon receipt, Daniels will have 60 days to make his appointment.

On Nation, the letter says: “With thirty-seven years of diverse legal practice – as a civil trial attorney, a prosecutor, and trial judge – Steven Nation has a familiarity with all facets of the Indiana judicial system and is recognized as a wise, compassionate, and fair jurist. … His commitment to public service is demonstrated not only from his past activities but also from his unwavering pledge to dedicate the remaining thirteen years of his career to the Indiana Supreme Court, if selected.”

On Rush: “As a jurist, administrator, and community leader, Loretta Rush has developed an impressive reputation for being one of the judiciary’s most dedicated leaders and, as one community leader described, ‘[A] visionary with incredible foresight.’ Knowledgeable observers routinely spoke of her courage, commitment, patience, and tireless energy in approaching some of the court’s most intricate and formidable problems.”

On Slaughter: “Highly regarded for his intellect, penetrating legal analysis, wisdom, and judgment, he is often sought out by his peers for consultation and referral of clients on sensitive legal matters. As one prominent practitioner wrote, ‘Brilliant is not a term I use lightly, but it applies here … He is known throughout this state as a man of integrity and character, and holds a place of respect in the legal community that few others hold.”


 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT