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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT