a vote we can agree on

[IndianaGTI]

OK, there is an article in the Courier Journal. It says that Justice David is likely to be the next Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court. For any that don't know, Justice David is credited as authoring the case that says that citizens no longer have the right to reasonably resist unlawful entry into their home by law enforcement.

The article says that in order for Justice David to be appointed as Chief Justice, he will have to survive a 2012 retention vote. I personally will be voting not to retain him as a Justice. I would suspect that this is one vote that almost everyone will agree with. I don't even know of any LEO's who would not reasonably resist unlawful entry into their homes.

 

[TaunTaun]

Yeah, easy slam dunk on that one. Spread the word to friends and family on this one.

 

[jgreiner]

I am voting no.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'd vote no simply because his wording in that case was so poor.

 

[littletommy]

I believe he is actually a very principled man, one who stands behind his beliefs, and actually has a great deal of integrity, which is hard to find in most public officials these days. That being said, yes, his opinion was very poorly worded. I do not think he meant it in the context it was perceived by most, but it left a lot of questions on the table. But bottom line is the cops are not going to just come to your door and demand entry for no reason because of this opinion/ruling. It will not be an easy choice for me to vote either way, I'm still trying to figure him out.

 

[Slapstick]

I believe he is actually a very principled man, one who stands behind his beliefs, and actually has a great deal of integrity, which is hard to find in most public officials these days. That being said, yes, his opinion was very poorly worded. I do not think he meant it in the context it was perceived by most, but it left a lot of questions on the table. But bottom line is the cops are not going to just come to your door and demand entry for no reason because of this opinion/ruling. It will not be an easy choice for me to vote either way, I'm still trying to figure him out.

He may be principled, he may stand behind his beliefs and he may have integrity but that doesn't make him right. It's a no vote from me.

 

[IndianaGTI]

I do not think he meant it in the context it was perceived by most, but it left a lot of questions on the table. But bottom line is the cops are not going to just come to your door and demand entry for no reason because of this opinion/ruling.

As a Supreme Court Justice, he better have meant it in the context it was perceived by most! If he didn't, he needs a new line of work. That is what the Supreme Court does. It interprets the law of the land for the rest of us. If he is incapable of making a clear decision, then he does not need to be there.

“[We] hold that the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law,” the court’s majority wrote in it’s verdict on Richard L. Barnes v. Indiana.

Seems pretty clear to me. I don't know how that can be misinterpreted.

 

[littletommy]

Oh I understand what you guys are saying, like I said, I'm not sure about this guy, for me, it's going to be who the possible replacements are. I don't like the decision one bit, but I'm going to be looking at other things as well.

 

[IndianaGTI]

Oh I understand what you guys are saying, like I said, I'm not sure about this guy, for me, it's going to be who the possible replacements are. I don't like the decision one bit, but I'm going to be looking at other things as well.

I don't get into arguments about how bad the next guy will be. I think it is ridiculous when people say, I voting for the guy who I know is a crook or an idiot because the next guy may be worse. I vote the crooks and idiots out and give the next guy a chance. If he is a crook or an idiot, I will vote to remove him too, but I am certainly voting to remove this guy.

 

[xM3RC1L3SS1x]

I vote "no".