At the request of Indiana State Senators like Ed Charbonneau, the Indiana General Assembly has decided to form a panel to consider legislation overturning or amending the recent decision in Barnes v. State. This is atypical for the IGA to do on such short notice, and it is probably due to the controversy of public opinion spurred by the unpopular decision.
More than three hundred (300) people showed up in front of the Indiana Statehouse to protest the far-reaching decision. Some are even concerned that the incentive for fraud is increased, and the security of police officers is in jeopardy as a result of the decision.
Too much cannot be said about this decision. Two (2) out of three (3) branches of government–as well as a significant cross-section of Hoosiers–are diligently working to overturn, narrow, or limit the effects of its far reach. James Madison spoke about what the various branches represent and limitations on their respective power in Federalist #51. However, the only possible check on the judiciary is the appointment of the Supreme Court justices by the executive.
In Indiana this check is provided directly by “the people” through the election and retention process, respectively; however, throughout Indiana history these have not provided the significant “check” upon the judiciary that was intended. (For an in-depth analysis, see recent Indiana Lawyer article, “Touched by Controversy”.) Many justices have committed far more grave errors in judgment and created far more controversy than this decision, yet, not a single one has been ousted on retention. This may be changing, however, due to a recent effort to reform the judicial nominating process in Indiana.
How do you think Indiana Supreme Court Justices should be selected?