ILNews

Judicial panel promotes civic education

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court hosted a panel discussion recently to discuss the broad topic of judicial independence, taking a lesson about how the courts operate to an Indianapolis college campus.

Adopting an American Bar Association Judicial Division project known as “The Least Understood Branch,” the event drew in more than 200 people Feb. 15 at Martin University. It was part of the court’s celebration of Black History Month. The program is a result of efforts by Disciplinary Committee Executive Secretary G. Michael Witte, who chairs the ABA’s Judicial Division and has created and hosted these events nationally.

Responding to the rising number of attacks on the judicial branch by the executive and legislative branches and the public nationwide, Witte said he wanted to spend his year in that ABA role emphasizing civic education to make sure everyone understands what is at stake.

“The public sometimes forgets that the judicial branch has to follow the rule of law, rather than what’s popular opinion,” he said. “I think this all indicates why there should be a call for civic education in our nation’s schools, and also why the legal profession as a whole must rise to defend our fair and impartial judiciary and the rule of law.”

Marion Superior Judge David Dreyer moderated a panel discussion on judicial independence that asked “Is it we the people, or we the courts?” Members of that panel included U.S. Judge Sarah Evans Barker from the Southern District of Indiana, Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis political and law professor John Hill, and IUPUI journalism professor Dan Drew, who has reported on the courts.

Beginning the discussion, Judge Dreyer asked the panelists about judicial selection and Hill responded that elections can be a “black hole” and discussed how Iowa can be viewed as an example of how judicial elections based on public opinion go against the whole point of the judiciary’s obligation to follow the law. In that state, the Supreme Court upheld same sex marriages, and voters in November tossed those jurists from the bench as a result of that unpopular opinion.

“You don’t write for the public, but you’re mindful of the confusion out there on an issue of the law,” Judge Barker said. “You write based on the law, but you don’t live in a vacuum and you don’t want to soapbox it.”

Indiana Supreme Court Justice Robert Rucker also spoke about the state’s various judicial selection systems and Supreme Court operations.

In honor of Black History Month, the program included past Indiana State Bar Association president Rod Morgan, an attorney at Bingham McHale, who talked about an Indianapolis African-American attorney named John Morton Finney who was admitted to the state bar in 1935 and practiced until age 105.

The Indiana courts used Facebook to publicize the program, and it posted photos and information after the event. The page can be found at http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Indianas-Least-Understood-Branch/181048511917643.•

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. All the lawyers involved in this don't add up to a hill of beans; mostly yes-men punching their tickets for future advancement. REMF types. Window dressing. Who in this mess was a real hero? the whistleblower that let the public know about the torture, whom the US sent to Jail. John Kyriakou. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/us/ex-officer-for-cia-is-sentenced-in-leak-case.html?_r=0 Now, considering that Torture is Illegal, considering that during Vietnam a soldier was court-martialed and imprisoned for waterboarding, why has the whistleblower gone to jail but none of the torturers have been held to account? It's amazing that Uncle Sam's sunk lower than Vietnam. But that's where we're at. An even more unjust and pointless war conducted in an even more bogus manner. this from npr: "On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier." Today, the US itself has become lawless.

  2. "Brain Damage" alright.... The lunatic is on the grass/ The lunatic is on the grass/ Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs/ Got to keep the loonies on the path.... The lunatic is in the hall/ The lunatics are in my hall/ The paper holds their folded faces to the floor/ And every day the paper boy brings more/ And if the dam breaks open many years too soon/ And if there is no room upon the hill/ And if your head explodes with dark forbodings too/ I'll see you on the dark side of the moon!!!

  3. It is amazing how selectively courts can read cases and how two very similar factpatterns can result in quite different renderings. I cited this very same argument in Brown v. Bowman, lost. I guess it is panel, panel, panel when one is on appeal. Sad thing is, I had Sykes. Same argument, she went the opposite. Her Rooker-Feldman jurisprudence is now decidedly unintelligible.

  4. November, 2014, I was charged with OWI/Endangering a person. I was not given a Breathalyzer test and the arresting officer did not believe that alcohol was in any way involved. I was self-overmedicated with prescription medications. I was taken to local hospital for blood draw to be sent to State Tox Lab. My attorney gave me a cookie-cutter plea which amounts to an ALCOHOL-related charge. Totally unacceptable!! HOW can I get my TOX report from the state lab???

  5. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

ADVERTISEMENT