IBJNews

  • Home

Justice sets up campaign website

Associated Press
October 19, 2012
Keywords
Government, Indiana Supreme Court, Judges, Law
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

An Indiana Supreme Court justice facing rare opposition has set up a campaign website.

Justice Steven David must pass a yes or no vote in the Nov. 6 election to remain on the state's highest court. But opponents want David ousted because of a 2011 decision he wrote asserting Indiana residents didn't have the right to resist the police, even if officers illegally enter their homes.

David told The Associated Press on Friday that the ruling had been misunderstood.

One section of the website says judges "don't have the luxury of taking a poll to find out which way they should rule on thorny issues," but must rule based on the facts and the law.

It also features information about David's military record, court decisions and community involvement.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • to sweetwilli
    libertyOctober 22, 2012 3:12 PM
    The story stated "illegally" enter your residence- that means- NO search warrant! now how do you feel about the Police just inviting themselves in without authorization?
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • misunderstood decision
    DC IndyOctober 22, 2012 1:38 PM
    Most of the cops I have met are really public safety people at heart. I'll bet the huge majority of cases where they actually forcibly enter a building are when they think there is a threat of physical safety of someone in it.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Right to shoot police
    sweetwilliOctober 19, 2012 4:33 PM
    This is another invention of the terminally ignorant. If the police mistakenly knock down your door while serving a search warrant, how do you have a right to kill them? They have a difficult job to do and yes they sometimes make a mistake, but that is not cause for a death penalty.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

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.

ADVANCED SEARCH
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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT