ILNews

Lucas: Consider where you stand in the national debate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

EidtPerspLucas-sigI had a journalism professor in college who was very fond of saying, “Remember, every story has two sides. It is your job as a reporter to take neither of them.”

Frankly, I think that is impossible. Journalists are human, too, (although I realize some might argue this point with me) and we are all prone to opinion. I always thought it would have been much more appropriate for my professor to have said, “Every story has two sides, but it is your job as a reporter to never let your reader know which side you take.”

Last week was a difficult one for those covering the news to avoid taking sides. The constitutionality of several very important issues – including the Arizona immigration law and the Affordable Care Act – were ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States.

To quote a law school scene from one of my favorite movies – “the law is reason, free from passion.” (The quote is actually from Aristotle but, “Legally Blonde” fans, you know where I’m going with this.) As Elle Woods pointed out at her Harvard Law graduation, “No offense to Aristotle, but I have found … passion is a key ingredient to the study and practice of law.”

While it might not have a place in the decisions of the court, passion clearly poured from those waiting for and affected by the decisions.

Take the immigration issue, for example. A nation must have laws and those laws must be upheld to maintain order. There is a process in place for those who want to immigrate to the United States, and is it fair to those who follow the rules and go through that process to allow those who don’t to stay in this country? It is understandable why some ask and demand answers to that question.

But the answers aren’t as defined as our borders. What about those young people who are in this country because they were brought here at a very young age by their parents. The reasons their parents came vary. The Indiana Lawyer reported last fall the story of a young woman who was close to earning her college degree but had to drop out of school because a change in Indiana law in 2011 no longer allowed her to receive in-state tuition. She could not afford to pay out-of-state rates. True, she was an undocumented immigrant and the law is the law. But her reality is that she has lived in Indiana most of her life and only in the last couple of years learned of her undocumented status. Whether the change is fair or not can be debated, but the situation for one young girl was still heartbreaking.

While the IL staff recognizes the passion that many who are involved in these cases feel, we strive to report the news, provide ample facts, and allow you to come to your own opinion. On Page 3 we report on the Supreme Court’s immigration decision and its possible impact in Indiana, and on this page immigration attorney Angela Adams explains the potential impact of the policy change concerning young undocumented immigrants announced by the president in June.

While politics is undeniably a part of these debates, more than one analyst has opined that the split of the court in its opinion on the Affordable Care Act could be viewed as dampening arguments some have made about the politicizing of the Supreme Court. That verdict is still out. But as discussions continue about immigration, health care, and many of the other controversial issues on the national agenda – and about the only thing we know for certain at this point is that they will continue – I hope that many of us can spend a little less time worrying about what side we are on, and a little more time thinking about where we should stand.•

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT