IBJNews

Daniels names former counsel Massa to high court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former newspaper reporter and top legal adviser to Gov. Mitch Daniels has been named to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Mark Massa, 50, was introduced Friday by Daniels, who filled a vacancy created by the retirement of Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard.

The court's newest justice serves as executive director of the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute. He was Daniels' chief counsel from 2006 to 2010, when he resigned for an unsuccessful run for Marion County prosecutor. He also has worked as an assistant U.S. attorney and as a deputy prosecutor in Marion County.

He clerked for Shepard and worked as an aide to then-Gov. Robert Orr in the late 1980s, and had been a newspaper reporter in Evansville.

"He has seen the law from private and public sides. He is one of the finest prosecutors ever to come to the bench in this state," Daniels said of Massa.

Massa called his appointment "a sobering responsibility and an honor."

"It is really beyond words," he said.

Massa was one of three finalists for the vacancy. The others were Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Cale Bradford and Indianapolis attorney Jane Seigel.

Daniels said Massa's history as his official counsel hadn't given him any advantage.

"Obviously, I think very highly of Mark's talents. But in all honesty I think it operated against him. I may have underestimated how highly others thought of him," Daniels said.

He said he selected Massa in part for his belief in "judicial restraint ... and a disinclination to make law from the bench."

Massa said he believes that judges should look to the "plain meaning" of the state and federal constitutions, and only try to interpret the writers' intent when the meaning isn't apparent.

Joel Schumm, a professor at the Indiana University School of Law in Indianapolis who studies the state judiciary, said Massa was expected to be a "top contender" for the court vacancy since a judicial commission began reviewing the applications in January, due to his qualifications and his ties to Daniels and Shepard.

"If Mr. Massa is interested in being chief justice, he will have a strong shot at the position. The same Judicial Nominating Commission, which just named him as a finalist, will select the chief justice. The commission obviously knows and respects him," Schumm said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller praised Massa's appointment.

"Mark Massa has excellent credentials that he brings as the new justice. Mark is greatly respected in legal circles and follows in a long tradition of outstanding jurisprudence. I look forward to his continuing service to the state of Indiana," Zoeller said in a statement.

Massa is the second justice Daniels has appointed since taking office in 2004. He named Steven David, a decorated Army officer who once served as chief defense counsel for Guantanamo Bay detainees, to the bench in 2010 following the retirement of Justice Theodore Boehm.

Indiana has not had a female Supreme Court justice since Myra Selby stepped down in 1999 after five years on the bench.

Shepard's retirement was effective Friday after 27 years on the court. Though Massa fills the vacancy, a judicial commission will select the new chief justice from among the Supreme Court's five justices.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • No women since 1999!
    I know these appointments should be based on qualifications but I can not believe in 2012 that there are no women who have the qualifications to be a member of the Indiana State Supreme Court. Ridiculous.
  • AMEN
    The title says it all...corruption will win
  • What a surprise
    What a suprise, the gov paysoff another polictical hack. Massa is just another example of Mitch. I am surprised Mitch did not consider his bud Mitch Robb. The choices the gov makes never cease to amaze me. Massa could not get elected prosecuter, so the gov makes sure that he has a job for life. Great, another 50yr old to run a court that deserves better.

    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 IBJ 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

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

    2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

    3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

    4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

    5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).

    ADVERTISEMENT