Dan Canon discusses the marriage equality case, 5 years on. Now is it the turn for racial justice?

Dan Canon's column in LEO Weekly last week. Click the link, read it all. We're very fortunate to have Dan, Valerie and their kids in the neighborhood.

Marriage equality case 5 years later: Can that victory be replicated for racial justice?

 ... My naiveté served me well. We went to the Supreme Court in 2015. We won.

I got my feather and hung it on my wall. Our clients, and millions of other people, can get married. I’ve been to lots of weddings over the last five years. I’ve even officiated a few. It feels good.

I suppose it’s for the best that I didn’t recognize then what I see clearly now: Of all the ways to try to bring about social change, filing a lawsuit and leaving it to a judge in the Midwest, or the South, or anywhere, is among the worst. As evidence, I offer a detail that is often lost in the retelling of the marriage cases: We lost. We lost in the court of appeals on our way to the Supreme Court. We lost in the court that presides over Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee. We lost in a court that hears hundreds of cases every year on police misconduct, inmates’ rights, immigration detention, free speech, abortion and every other hot-button issue anyone has ever cared about. We lost, just like the national organizations said we would. We lost, just like everyone loses. And since the Supreme Court takes so few cases, losing at that court is the end of the line for most people seeking to make change through what we think of as proper, respectable channels.

By the time we lost in the lower court, pro-marriage activists were accustomed to losing legal battles ...

 ... For now, I’ll celebrate our surprising win in an institution designed to make losers. I’ll celebrate the marriages of Tim and Larry, Greg and Michael, Kim and Tammy, Maurice and Dominique, Paul and Randy, and Luke and Jimmy. And even as the buzzards circle the great bird that gave me my defunct quill, I’ll celebrate what the marriage case stands for: The hope that the mythology of American equality can be realized, even if we don’t quite know the recipe for it.

The national media discovers SoIn: "3 Indiana Judges Suspended After White Castle Brawl That Left 2 Of Them Wounded."

Social media debates on this topic began shortly after the incident in May, then subsided, only to explode into the stratosphere when the story finally went national.

Opinion seems divided into two distinct strands of thought. The first, advocated by those who know the three judges personally, is that everyone deserves another chance. The other, expressed by the Indiana Supreme Court, upholds the existence of a higher bar (pun unintended) for those donning judicial robes.

The cynical way to look at it would be to shrug; all other institutions have become degraded in the last quarter-century, and nowadays nationwide there are more barely qualified judges than flavors of hard seltzer.

Who cares if they drink and carouse? Haven't we all?

Perhaps a less hopeless take is to assert that without a rediscovery of useful core ethics to guide the judiciary, their verdicts are rendered into nonsense.

I'm reminded of the late father of a close friend, who was a banker at a time when banking was local and not a by-product of neoliberal self-immolation. In short, my friend's dad was a banker 24 hours a day, not merely eight. He dressed, thought and lived the job, because if a banker behaved like a rock star out in public, it reduced confidence in the institution guarding one's savings.

I realize the relationship between a banker and his community was more complicated than this, even then. It doesn't change the fact that my friend's father recognized a responsibility, and knew his personal honor was at stake.

Southern Indiana currently is a laughingstock owing to the tale of the strip-club-seeking drunken judges and their ill-advised journey to White Castle. Fortunately for everyone involved, no one died and the ignominy will be short-lived in a nation with the collective attention span of a moth.

Is a suspension and some form of penance enough punishment for these judges? I've no idea.

If their own case came before them, how would they decide it?   

3 Indiana Judges Suspended After White Castle Brawl That Left 2 Of Them Wounded, by Laurel Wamsley (NPR)

Back in May, three Indiana judges got into a fight. It was the crescendo of an incident brimming with colorful details: a gaggle of judges drinking the night before a judicial conference, a failed attempt to visit a strip club called the Red Garter, a brawl in the parking lot of an Indianapolis White Castle ...

Open thread: Elections for Floyd County Superior Court 2 & 3.

The election’s only a week away, and it’s time to consider the local races. NAC’s pants-down editorial board hasn’t undertaken a detailed consideration of the candidates, which is to say there hasn’t been the chance to set aside three hours for beer, pizza and politics. For now, we're throwing out local contests randomly for discussion, and using the Tribune's hard work to set the table. Thanks, guys.

First up, the two contested judicial races. In the new Floyd Superior 3 ...

Attorneys battle to become judge of new Floyd County court, by Matt Thacker (News and Tribune).

Two New Albany attorneys are facing off to become the first judge of the newly created Floyd County Superior Court No. 3. The campaigns have focused on what type of experience is most important for a judge.

Republican Rick Fox, 53, boasts 21 years of experience in the courtroom and has represented various agencies at different levels of government. Democrat Maria Granger, 53, says she already has judicial experience as a Supreme Court Hearing Officer and taught Business Law at Indiana University Southeast.

Fox has accused Granger of not having enough jury trial experience.“I’ve tried criminal and civil jury trials as well as have had many cases in the Indiana Court of Appeals,” Fox said. “I think that distinguishes my record from (Granger’s) record.”

Granger said that she has tried about 10 cases before a jury, but also manages more than 600 cases per year as Hearing Officer.

Earlier today at Freedom of Speech, Granger repeated a statement that first drew attention here during last spring’s primary, and that Fox references above:

I am also the only candidate in this race who has fought crime for more than five years and prosecuted hundreds of cases before judges and juries.

Perhaps our resident legal minds can help make sense of this lingering oddity. What constitutes a case before a judge and jury, and how many has she really tried?

ELECTION Q & A 2008: Floyd Superior Court 3
Maria Granger for Judge (Superior III)
Rick Fox for Judge (Superior III)

The other contested judicial race is Superior 2, pitting Glenn Hancock (D) and Chris Lane (R).

ELECTION Q&A 2008: Floyd Superior Court 2
Glenn Hancock for Judge (Superior II)
Chris Lane for Judge (Superior II)

Susan Orth (D) is unopposed in Superior I: Susan Orth for Judge (Superior I).

Please post your thoughts, subject to the usual identification policy.

Open thread: Races for judge, Floyd Superior 1 & 3.

Wednesday’s Tribune offered brief analysis of the judicial races on next Tuesday’s electoral card:

Floyd County Superior Court 3: Three Dems vie for new judgeship, by Stephanie Mojica.

The new court, which takes effect in 2009, is being created to reduce the caseloads of the existing Floyd County Court, Floyd Superior Court and Floyd Circuit Court. The three Democrats vying for the nomination are Richard Bolin, Maria Granger and Stan Robison.

Floyd County Superior Court 1: Longtime lawyer challenging Orth, by Stephanie Mojica.

Defense attorney Michael McDaniel is running against incumbent Judge Susan L. Orth for a spot on the ballot for November’s Floyd County Superior Court No. 1 race.

Speaking only for myself, Stan Robison’s extensive non-sectarian legal experience speaks volumes, and he gets my vote in Superior 3.

As for Superior 1, it’s a tougher call, but to be perfectly honest, the skilled and curmudgeonly Michael J. is one of my foremost local heroes ... and it's not a bad idea to have at least one safecracker on the police force.

Readers, you may well feel differently. Let ‘er rip.

Meet the candidate: Stan Robison, Floyd County Superior Court 3, Wed. Jan. 16 at NABC.

Last week, Stan Robison announced his candidacy for the new Floyd County Superior Court 3 judgeship. The election will be on Tuesday, May 6, which of course is the date for Indiana's 2008 primary, and not coincidentally, the first of two NABC Elector nights this year.

But I digress.

Speaking personally, I've known Stan since the early 1980s. He's had a successful law practice in New Albany and has served as deputy prosecutor and public defender. He has my vote, but you don't have to take my word for it.

On Wednesday, January 16, there'll be a "meet the candidate and fundraiser" beginning at 6:00 p.m. in the Prost room at New Albanian Brewing Co., 3312 Plaza Dr., in New Albany. There'll be pizza, Progressive Pints, and the opportunity to get to know Stan.

I may be a bit late; there's a funeral earlier in the afternoon near Indianapolis. Even so, hope to see readers there at some point tomorrow night.

Stan Robison for Judge