James M. Redwine

Law

Affirmation Finally

by 1 Comment

I wrote the first of my over 900 “Gavel Gamut” columns in 1990 at the request of my friend, Jim Kohlmeyer. Jim was the Posey County, Indiana Republican Party Chairman and the owner of the New Harmony Times newspaper (now The Posey County News owned by my friend, Dave Pearce).

Jim had recently purchased the paper and was desperate for filler. He asked me, the Democrat, elected, Posey County Circuit Court Judge, to write a column about “legal topics.” Jim did not care what I wrote. Since 1990 and every week since April of 2005 I have written about topics from local heroes to national issues as I saw fit. As those of you, Gentle Readers, will note, in several of my burnt offerings my wife, Peg, had to bear the brunt of my ramblings. However, most of “Gavel Gamut” has dealt with legal topics. A major theme has been the legal system, particularly judges. The federal courts and especially the United States Supreme Court have been the recipients of my chagrin over these thirty-two years during all of which I have served and am still serving as a judge myself. Although after thirty-eight years on the Bench as a partisan-elected judge I term-limited myself and now serve in other judicial venues, such as the Country of Georgia and the National Judicial College.

As I have written numerous times, my belief is that our American democracy is in danger from non-elected, life-tenured judges. I have stated this position frequently and I hold to it firmly.

However, even though I have often expected returning brickbats from those who champion appointing judges and granting them life-tenure, almost nobody has seemed to ever take umbrage from or stated their agreement with my position until October 3, 2022

Then, voila, along came that great journalist and philosopher, Fareed Zakaria whose excellent Sunday morning CNN show, GPS The Global Public Square, is the only national news program I find to contain news. On October 3, 2022 at 8:00 p.m. Fareed aired his special, “Supreme Power, Inside the Highest Court in the Land.”

Now, Gentle Readers, I am not claiming, although I wish I could, that Dr. Zakaria has ever heard of, much less been influenced by my analysis on any subject. However, his special clearly stated one of the greatest current dangers to our democracy is life-tenured members of the U.S. Supreme Court and the totally politicized method of their selection process.

            Let me say this about that (as President John F. Kennedy used to say), AMEN, brother Fareed!

Judicial Proclivities

by Leave a Comment

Three of the United States Supreme Court’s own members Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor warn us the Court has appointed itself, instead of Congress or the EPA, the decision maker on climate policy. An outcome the three dissenters found frightening. See the dissenting opinion of Kagan as joined by Breyer and Sotomayor in West Virginia v. EPA decided June 30, 2022. What they meant was that the unelected Supreme Court installed the Judicial Branch as the policy maker for an issue, management of the environment, that should be within the Legislative Branch that is subject to democratic control, as the Court is not.

Most of us are unable to see the irony in our own actions. The same is true of the Supreme Court. The six-member majority of the Court couched its decision in terms of preserving policy making in Congress as opposed to unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency. But, according to the Dissent, what the Court did was simply replace the EPA with the Court as the ultimate decision maker on the broad, critical issues of environmental management.

In the similarly ironical decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health handed down 24 June 2022, the same majority set the U.S. Supreme Court up as the final policy maker on the volatile issue of abortion by deciding Roe v. Wade must be overturned and each state should decide the issue.

The same three dissenting justices warned in Dobbs that:

“The Court reverses course today for one reason and one reason only: because the composition of this Court has changed. Stare decisis, this Court has often said, contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process by ensuring that decisions are founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals. Today, the proclivities of individuals rule. The Court departs from its obligation to faithfully and impartially apply the law.”

It is not the substance of either the EPA case or the abortion case that is our concern in today’s column. Those emotional issues of global warming and human reproduction are just too volatile and complicated to be adequately discussed in one short column. Instead, what I am struck by is the obtuseness of nine unelected, life-tenured people who arrogate themselves as final arbiters of issues so vital to the lives of 330 million Americans.  Perhaps the Supreme Court has finally brought in to focus that the justices are merely politicians on a micro scale. What I wish to discuss is how we might retain our three equal branches of government through a macro democratic process.

Does any rational observer of the Court deny the justices are simply politicians who wear black dresses and pretend to be apolitical? The justices are not to blame. If you, Gentle Reader, or I were placed by Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation on the Court, we would take our prejudices and “proclivities” with us. The problem lies not with the members of the Court but with the undemocratic way they are selected coupled with their life-time tenure. It is our Court and our Constitution and we should change both.

We have amended our Constitution 27 times. We should do so again. I suggest that the members of the U.S. Supreme Court and all federal judges be elected in a non-partisan election for one 10-year term. Once their term is honorably served, we should pay them their full salary for life and they should never serve as a judge again. The impeachment process should remain an option in case we make a mistake.

In summary, federal judges are no better or no worse than the rest of us. They are human, they have “proclivities”, they are politicians. We should drop the façade of “philosopher kings” and have our federal judges recognized as a full-fledged branch of our democracy as selected via a democratic process.

Not Rocket Science

by 3 Comments

The Rule of Law is not the stuff of artificial intelligence and differential equations. It is not about the James Webb telescope that may help disclose where and when we came from. It is not about a cure for COVID. No, the Rule of Law is far more complex, and perplexing, than any of those things. However, if properly applied, the Rule of Law can help us understand and deal with these challenges and others.

Law sounds simple. Treat others the way you wish to be treated. Respect the person and property of others. These principles are easy to say but thousands of years of human history prove they are extremely difficult to apply. Our Declaration of Independence sets out the basics of our legal system, “…[A]ll men are created equal,” and all men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When Thomas Jefferson penned those simple ideals he owned slaves, and had children he did not acknowledge by at least one of those slaves. Also, women could not vote and the property rights of Native Americans were not even an afterthought. Were Jefferson and the rest of the 1776ers evil? No, they were human. We call these concepts ideals because the realities are nearly impossible to achieve. That is why we need the Rule of Law, to encourage us to try.

Our Constitution sets forth America’s aspiration to form a more perfect union. Surely none of our Founders was naïve enough to believe perfect self-government was achievable. That is not why goals are set. Just as it is the struggle of life that can separate us from all other animals and, perhaps from some humans, it is government’s role to help us strive for perfection. We have often fallen short and we always will. But just as we are fighting the war on COVID in fits and starts we can face our past failures in how we have behaved and strive to be better. There will never be a cure for our occasional imperfect collective missteps. That is why we need to acknowledge our past failures and seek to avoid future sins. We should do this together.

In her book, On the Courthouse Lawn, Sherrilyn Ifill points out the irony of many lynchings being carried out by large numbers of a community right at the seat of justice, the county courthouse. Also, our courthouses are often the site where the legal system has been used to deny human rights, such as through the separation of Native American families and establishment of some guardianships that led to murder.

Community recognition of these subversions of the Rule of Law is important. Monuments that show society admits its wrongs, even if long past, can help people heal and avoid new injustices.

Mr. Thomas, Meet Phil Redwine

by 2 Comments

Philip W. Redwine

Dylan Thomas (1914-1953) was a Welsh poet who was imploring his dying father to fight against death. Dylan pleaded with his dad:

“Do not go gentle into that good night. Old age should burn and rave at close of day. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”

The bravest fighter against Death I have ever known was my 79-year-old brother, Philip W. Redwine. Death was playing against Phil with a stacked deck but Phil kept drawing to inside straights for 34 years after Death thought it had dealt Phil a losing hand. The ultimate outcome was never in doubt but the timing sure was.

In 1987 Phil had a wife to help support and three young children to rear when, as country singer Tim McGraw sang:

“He was in his early forties (Phil was 44) with a lot of life before him when a moment came that stopped him on a dime.”

The oncologists at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington told Phil he could die within 4 months but certainly would not live beyond 2 more years. Phil and our sister, Jane Redwine Bartlett, had gone to Seattle so Phil could apply to be a part of an experimental treatment program as Phil’s physicians in Norman, Oklahoma where Phil practiced law told Phil he only had 6 months to live. The Fred Hutchinson medical team apologized to Phil when they told him the cut off age for the experimental treatment study was 40. As Jane reported to our oldest brother C. E. Redwine and his wife Shirley and me, Phil simply responded that the Fred Hutchinson team, “Was not talking to the Phil Redwine who was dying, but to the Phil Redwine who was living and they were going to want him as a model for their study.” He asked them for the treatment even if he was not included in the study. After an overnight meeting Fred Hutchinson agreed to let him try.

So, for 34 years Phil practiced law, supported his family and was deeply involved in giving of his very limited time and limitless talents to his community. He endured chemotherapy, radiation, kidney failure, heart disease and cancer induced diabetes as he gave love and free legal advice to countless family members and friends. Phil could have been the model for the author of the Book of Proverbs. Just a few of the truisms that Phil’s life exemplified are:

Proverbs 13:22            “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.”

Proverbs 19:11            “Good sense makes a man slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense.”

Phil would always listen respectfully to another’s point of view and would hear them out completely before agreeing or, gently, disagreeing.

Proverbs 18:2              “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”

Proverbs 18:13            “If one gives answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.”

Proverbs 18:15            “An intelligent mind acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”

When you sought advice from Phil you knew he would carefully consider everything that you said then he would respond wisely and never make you feel lesser. Perhaps his constant companion, Death At Any Moment, guided his thoughts and helped him see others as Ernie Pyle said about soldiers in World War II:

“When you’ve lived with the unnatural mass cruelty that mankind is capable of inflicting on itself, you find yourself dispossessed of the faculty for blaming one poor man for the triviality of his faults.”

And perhaps his own constant vulnerability filled him with a passion to champion those who could not champion themselves. Phil fought the good fight for good causes in and out of court and often at immense cost to himself. He will be greatly missed, but his legacy is long and strong. Well done, Brother, you are my hero.

This picture was taken immediately after Peg finished printing the “Gavel Gamut”. Do you think Phil read this article?

Tribal Court

by Leave a Comment

Chief Joseph

After forty years of serving as a judge in the white man’s courts I was recently honored to be asked to serve as a Special Judge by appointment of the Court of Appeals of the Stockbridge-Munsee Community of the Mohican Nation. The appointment of an outside judge was necessary because the case involves questions of tribal membership and the regularly sitting Native American judges for the Tribe had conflicts of interest due to the judges’ personal connections to the issues.

As I had no experience with Native American law, I had to first familiarize myself with the particular Tribe’s particular Constitution, procedural rules and statutes that applied to my assigned case. What I found was the bedrock issues for the Indian judicial system are remarkedly similar to the legal system I learned in law school and sat as a judge in. When I looked closely at tribal law, I came to the same conclusion attorney Abraham Lincoln did. Lincoln said the primary purpose of all courts and lawyers should be to:

“Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. As a peacemaker, the lawyer (judge) has a superior opportunity of being a good person.”

If one reads some newspaper editors or listens to cable news anchors, he or she might conclude compromise is anathema to the American body politic’s well-being. Conflict and strife with unyielding single mindedness are the watchwords for national media and federal, and many state, office holders. This way of addressing our personal and national problems seems rather discordant when a majority of Americans apparently believe their preferred law giver said:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God.”
Matthew 5:9

It is ironic that those, many of whom champion Jesus the ultimate practitioner of compromise, so often call for obstinance and conflict. I guess the concept of situational ethics passes them by.

What I discovered in researching tribal law was what legal scholars have known since the days of Socrates: all courts are here to resolve controversies. That is their only charter, not to provide fodder for the gossip mill or entertainment for the afternoon or late-night talk show crowd. Judges, whether in the white man’s legal system or the Indian’s, have one main mission, that is to help people help themselves, if they can, to make peace.

I grew up on an Indian reservation but my experience with the kids I played ball with, fought with and dated was they were just like me. Therefore, I was not surprised Native American courts had the same mission as the one I presided over in the white man’s world. On the other hand, it is comforting to think should I for some reason get caught up in a tribal legal system it will be about the same as the social system I have always known. And I am glad America is finally getting around to recognizing what should have always been the case.

The tribal law I researched reminded me of laws enacted from the times of ancient Rome, ancient Greece and English and French legal philosophers, such as John Locke and Voltaire and American Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Another great philosophical legal leader was Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce (1840-1904). Chief Joseph engaged in peaceful resistance until he was forced to surrender which he did based on certain representations from the white man’s government. Those representations were not honored. However, Chief Joseph upheld his end of the peace agreement and he was greatly admired as a peacemaker.

Chief Joseph’s legal philosophy is remarkedly similar to that of our earlier mentioned judge: Jesus said, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  Chief Joseph said:

“If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian, he can live in peace. Treat all men alike. Give them the same law.”

As a tribal judge, even if only for one case, I feel quite at home with this court mission statement from Chief Joseph.

2021 South Dakota Fall Judicial Conference

by Leave a Comment

For all the South Dakota Judges here are the 5 handouts and the Pre-Trial Order from Jim Redwine’s October 14, 2021 presentation:

MISSION STATEMENTS

The Mission of the Posey County, Indiana Circuit Court is to help create a community in which individuals, families, and entities are encouraged and facilitated to resolve legal problems among themselves and to provide a forum in which legal issues that are not privately disposed of are fairly and efficiently decided according to applicable law in an atmosphere of mutual respect and positive innovation.

The mission of the Posey County, Indiana Probation Department is to provide information ordered by the court and to accept juveniles and adults who are transferred to the Department and to supervise, record, and report their compliance with the terms of their probation in a manner which meets governing standards, protects the public, assists victims, and provides for the rehabilitation of offenders consistent with the effective application of Department resources.

PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPING A MISSION STATEMENT

Of course, you will need to finalize any Mission Statement after you return to your Court next week and I suggest using the procedure set out below for that process. For now, at your tables, please prepare and discuss preliminary Mission Statements for your Court. Thank you.

  1. Start with a positive attitude and an open mind.
  2. Determine what entities you want input from such as your staff, other Court Offices such as the Clerk’s Office, the Police Agencies, the Bar and the Public through a volunteer committee perhaps or members of the media.
  3. Define your Court’s and your immediate, short-term and long-term goals.
  4. Set forth written, simple guidance for stakeholders to give input.
  5. Ask for written suggestions and then objectively consider them.
  6. Give yourself and those involved a time line.
  7. Draft preliminary Mission Statements and test them with your staff then the Bar.
  8. Do not hesitate to carefully consider suggestions.
  9. Make and publish your Court’s Mission Statement.

CASE ADMINISTRATION

Your only job is to resolve controversies brought to you.

Discuss ideas with your fellow judges as how to best help the Parties to resolve their own problems fairly and efficiently.

How can you and your Bar move the disposition of cases as close to their initiation as is reasonable and just?

Discuss, share and develop court orders and procedures that accomplish these goals.

SECURITY PLANS

Rural Courts:  “I know everybody, everybody knows me, no one would want to hurt me. “WRONG!” Also irresponsible.

Every Court should have a Security Plan based on its particular circumstances. Follow the A.C.T. procedure in developing a plan for your Court.

  1. Assess your surroundings
  2. Create a Security Plan
  3. Train Yourself and your staff in the plan
  4. Take input from your staff, the Bar and law enforcement.
  5. Form and regularly consult with a Security Committee composed of persons with stakes in the outcome of any security problems.

Every court case can result in problems. Fence line disputes, family matters, landlord/tenant, etc.

Today, at your table with your colleagues, create a preliminary assessment of your Court’s security situation.

Starting Monday, October 18, 2021 implement the A.C.T. approach in its entirety.

ETHICS

Discuss the videos as to what decisions and actions you would and should take on questions of Recusal and handling Contempt.

Keep the guidance of the South Dakota Judicial Qualifications Commission in mind:

“Four things belong to a judge: Hear courteously; Answer wisely; Consider soberly and Decide impartially.”

  1. Uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary;
  2. Avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activity;
  3. Perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently;
  4. Conduct your extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations; and
  5. Refrain from inappropriate political activity.
Pre-Trial Order

 

%d bloggers like this: