As judges, we struggle with “rule of law” questions every day. The gray areas between a fact and a supposition dog our paths. The tension between the letter of the law and the conscience of the community complicate our considerations. In some cases, the rule of law just seems to be unjust. But overall, the true meaning of “rule of law” should not be a barrier.
On June 25, 2014, and the next day, I officiated over 50 same-sex marriages. For reasons I did not expect, it may have changed my life.
If judges wore wigs in the United States, there might be a marked increase, I say, in public confidence in our courts. Hopefully, it would not be outweighed by any marked increase in public satire, but it could not be any worse than the judge shows now on daytime TV. The public always needs to understand that courts are serious and judges are different. More importantly, it is necessary to understand why.
While there may (or may not) be a big difference between horses and humans, there may not be any difference between horse judging and human judging. After all, judging is a fundamental objective endeavor.
Like most judges, Shay Minton’s achievements were numerous, but largely unmeasured.
Marion Superior Judge David Dreyer discusses the "Change of Judge" rule in this issue of Indiana Lawyer.
Have you ever Googled “lawyer dog”? If you do, be prepared to see a limitless line of websites all featuring identical photos of the same canine seated behind his desk, along with various one-liners related to the law, dogs and just silliness.
Judge David Dreyer writes a letter to Gov. Mike Pence about how to make people more legally literate.
We judges are obligated to actually ignore popular opinion or preference and apply the law, but we are further constrained to not discuss our decisions on talk shows or interviews. Yet, public confidence in courts is more important than any other branch of government because people need to believe in us or they will not believe or obey our rulings.
Judge Dreyer comes up with a way to cure court budget woes and provide reality TV.
Some people just do not like judges. But according to Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Charles Geyh, most people do – at least up to a point.
So over many years, I found a kind of “sub-wisdom.” It came not from law study or research, but rather from living with real world cases.
A trial judge’s job is often befuddling. We have to differentiate between peoples’ language, their values, even their competing views about what language means.
Have you been thinking lately? Judges and lawyers make a profession of “thinking,” of analyzing, balancing, applying, and just plain old wondering. But do we think like we used to?
My daughter lives in Oregon but she never calls. But the other night she did text. Of course I did not find it until later, and it simply reported in plain terms the largest historical event of her young adult life. No glee, no joy, just a simple statement about what happened in Pakistan. But I have not been able to stop thinking what made it so important to contact her parents.
Judge David Dreyer discusses being an uncivil-holic.
Judge David Dreyer writes about judges doing their jobs on controversial topics.
Bryan Garner, editor of Black’s Law Dictionary, head of LawProse Inc., and plain English expert, uses the following passage in “The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing,” (1992), to show efforts to simplify legal writing existed as far back as 1837 when the author satirizes how a lawyer would write, “have an orange”: “Timothy Walker (1802-1856). […]
“The Indiana Model Civil Jury Instructions, written in plain English, are now available. … The new instructions
were prepared by the Civil Instructions Committee of the Indiana Judges Association.”
Judge David J. Dreyer urges the governor to appoint a Notre Dame Law School alum.