ILNews

Lucas: More information is needed when judging the judges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

EidtPerspLucas-sigMy mailbox has been overflowing lately with political flyers. I can’t turn on the television without seeing a steady barrage of Pence vs. Gregg, Mourdock vs. Donnelly or, of course, Obama vs. Romney ads. I’m sure you can relate.

But up the street and around the corner from my Broad Ripple house, a yard sign caught my eye that didn’t involve the usual Democrat versus Republican political rhetoric. This simple, hand-painted sign called for the ouster of Supreme Court Justice Steven David.

I find this rather disjointed grassroots effort to remove a sitting Supreme Court justice from the bench both fascinating and disturbing.

On the one hand, it demonstrates the people exercising their right of free speech, and based on what I know of Justice David, no one would support that more than him. In this issue of Indiana Lawyer, the justice speaks about those who oppose him, saying: “If somebody feels strongly that they don’t like the decision, I would defend until my death their right to have that opinion. As painful as that may be personally, that is who we are” as a country.

As I’m sure most know by now, the decision Justice David refers to is Richard L. Barnes v. State of Indiana, issued by the Supreme Court in 2011. In the case stemming from police response to a domestic violence 911 call, Justice David wrote the majority opinion which held that “there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.” While protests over the decision from those who felt it contradicted the Fourth Amendment and calls to remove the justice seemed to die down late last year, new life seems to have been breathed into the effort during this campaign season even though statutory changes made by the 2012 Legislature made the decision moot.

Still, public conversation is vital, and regardless of your stance on the issue brought to light through Barnes, it is good to see that the process can work. Judges rule based on their interpretation of the laws and Constitution; citizens voice their concerns if they do not feel those decisions, based on our rule of law, reflect society; and government reacts to effect change, if deemed appropriate. Opinions may not be unanimous, they may not always be correct, but the majority rules.

But on the other hand, the effort raises concerns about the understanding our citizenry has as to the role of a judge. I am certainly not the first to question this. Surveys tend to reveal that society at large knows little about the judiciary. Many people can not name members of their state’s supreme court. They tend to do a bit better with naming U.S. Supreme Court justices, but not significantly better.

Knowing this, it is not surprising that there is a lack of understanding in our society about how judges and justices arrive at the decisions they issue. Of course, I have no way of knowing if those behind this particular retention campaign effort understand that judges must rule using the laws and Constitution. Some have said they feel a line was crossed in this decision, but do they believe that line was crossed due to the interjection of personal or political opinion in the case or because the justices writing for the majority interpreted the law and Constitution differently than their detractors do?

Court-watchers say Justice David’s decisions have been fairly mainstream or middle of the road. Indiana attorneys gave him a favorability rating of 81 percent in the Indiana State Bar Association judicial survey. When Gov. Mitch Daniels chose Justice David to fill a seat on the Supreme Court, he said from him he heard, “the clearest expression of commitment to proper restraint in jurisprudence and deep respect for the boundaries of judicial decision making.” Gov. Daniels said, “He will be a judge who interprets rather than invents our laws.”

I understand that I am “preaching to the choir” when it comes to understanding the role of the judiciary. Regardless of your opinion of this particular judge’s work, or any judge’s work for that matter, it seems supporting the ouster of a judge based on one decision is dangerous. It seems to fly in the face of maintaining an independent judiciary. So is this, as they say, a teaching moment? Is it time for the choir to start singing?

ADVERTISEMENT

  • How condescending!
    Is it wrong for an ordinary citizen to disagree, not so much with a judge's decision but with a very poorly written ruling? Am I not 'educated' enough to have a voice? What if I simply feel that this Justice did a terrible job, most specifically on how he wrote the ruling, on a extremely important case? I thought he muddied the water and went beyond what the attorneys and the case regarded. If I majorly screw up an important project at my job I would face reprisal or possibly termination especially if it jeopardizes my employer. They would at least expect me to accept responsibility. I simply came to this site in research about how to make my retention vote and wanted to review these events objectively. (yes, I might be a rare breed that reviews the entire ballot before I go to vote.) However, I am amazed at arrogance expressed in this article. I don't believe you are an arrogant person. I tend to give most people the benefit of the doubt and I don't know you personally. So I want to ask, do judges and attorneys view citizens this way, an angry mob of mindless zombies that need to be schooled in the high and mighty ways of judicial workings? Or is the Judiciary too much for the meager concerned citizen to comprehend? No need to respond... I am just an ordinary citizen with no judicial qualifications.

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. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  2. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  3. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

  4. Dear Fan, let me help you correct the title to your post. "ACLU is [Left] most of the time" will render it accurate. Just google it if you doubt that I am, err, "right" about this: "By the mid-1930s, Roger Nash Baldwin had carved out a well-established reputation as America’s foremost civil libertarian. He was, at the same time, one of the nation’s leading figures in left-of-center circles. Founder and long time director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Baldwin was a firm Popular Fronter who believed that forces on the left side of the political spectrum should unite to ward off the threat posed by right-wing aggressors and to advance progressive causes. Baldwin’s expansive civil liberties perspective, coupled with his determined belief in the need for sweeping socioeconomic change, sometimes resulted in contradictory and controversial pronouncements. That made him something of a lightning rod for those who painted the ACLU with a red brush." http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/biographies/roger-baldwin-2/ "[George Soros underwrites the ACLU' which It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 "The creation of non-profit law firms ushered in an era of progressive public interest firms modeled after already established like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") and the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") to advance progressive causes from the environmental protection to consumer advocacy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_lawyering

  5. Mr. Foltz: Your comment that the ACLU is "one of the most wicked and evil organizations in existence today" clearly shows you have no real understanding of what the ACLU does for Americans. The fact that the state is paying out so much in legal fees to the ACLU is clear evidence the ACLU is doing something right, defending all of us from laws that are unconstitutional. The ACLU is the single largest advocacy group for the US Constitution. Every single citizen of the United States owes some level of debt to the ACLU for defending our rights.

ADVERTISEMENT