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. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  2. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  3. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

  4. When I hear 'Juvenile Lawyer' I think of an attorney helping a high school aged kid through the court system for a poor decision; like smashing mailboxes. Thank you for opening up my eyes to the bigger picture of the need for juvenile attorneys. It made me sad, but also fascinated, when it was explained, in the sixth paragraph, that parents making poor decisions (such as drug abuse) can cause situations where children need legal representation and aid from a lawyer.

  5. Some in the Hoosier legal elite consider this prayer recommended by the AG seditious, not to mention the Saint who pledged loyalty to God over King and went to the axe for so doing: "Thomas More, counselor of law and statesman of integrity, merry martyr and most human of saints: Pray that, for the glory of God and in the pursuit of His justice, I may be trustworthy with confidences, keen in study, accurate in analysis, correct in conclusion, able in argument, loyal to clients, honest with all, courteous to adversaries, ever attentive to conscience. Sit with me at my desk and listen with me to my clients' tales. Read with me in my library and stand always beside me so that today I shall not, to win a point, lose my soul. Pray that my family may find in me what yours found in you: friendship and courage, cheerfulness and charity, diligence in duties, counsel in adversity, patience in pain—their good servant, and God's first. Amen."

ADVERTISEMENT