ILNews

Supreme Court uses PBS to educate public on courts

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court is teaming up with the state’s Public Broadcasting Service to offer specials informing residents about the court system.

The programs will cover a variety of topics including pro se representation, the importance of jury service, alternative dispute resolution, and will also include several Indiana Supreme Court oral arguments. The videos will begin airing Thursday.

Indiana Supreme Court public information officer Kathryn Dolan said the programs are part of a new partnership between PBS and the Supreme Court and there will be others offered in the future. The programs in this series are the same that are available online on the court’s website. Dolan said the Supreme Court is pleased that PBS will be offering a new audience for the videos.

All eight Indiana PBS stations will offer the programming, although not all of their schedules have been updated to include the series. The first program set to air Thursday is “Family Matters: Choosing to Represent Yourself in Court.”


Indiana Trial Lawyers Association, Indiana Paralegal Association, Indiana State Bar Association, Indiana Supreme Court, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting provided funding for the series.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT