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
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