Retaining Judges on 2012 Ballot?

[NomadS]

4 Judges are on the ballot to be retained. Anyone have any information on any of the judges? Retained or not? AND WHY


(1) JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT Shall Justice Robert D. Rucker be retained in office?

(2) JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT Shall Justice Steven H. David be retained in office?

(3) JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS Shall Judge Nancy H. Vaidik be retained in office?

(4) JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT Shall Judge John G. Baker be retained in office?

 

[Stschil]

Vote No for David.

Remember, he came up with the 'Cant resist illegal entry by law enforcement' line.

The others I admit, I haven't kept up on the IN Supreme Court. (Hangs head in shame)

 

[jedi]

Discussion here:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._appeal_judicial_retention_voting_2012_a.html


NWI see post #21 and #22 for the answer.

 

[NomadS]

Discussion here:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._appeal_judicial_retention_voting_2012_a.html


NWI see post #21 and #22 for the answer.

Summary:
vote YES on RUCKER
Vote NO on DAVID

Other two???

 

[jedi]

Summary:
vote YES on RUCKER
Vote NO on DAVID

Other two???

I'm in district 3 (NWI) so only the this one
JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS Shall Judge Nancy H. Vaidik be retained in office?
will be on my ballet allong with the 2 district 3 guys.

Have not found an answer on them in terms of PRO-2A.

You can see how they ruled on cases by clicking on the link in their profile.
This is for Vaidik:
https://mycourts.in.gov/Retention/Vaidik

Not sure what you are looking for?
Pro 2A?
Pro Private Propety Rights?
Pro Gay?
Pro whatever???

 

[jedi]

Remember that election day is coming up soon.* Those of us in NWI will get a special treat this year with questions at the bottom of the ballet asking about our Indiana Judges.

You will see the following questions:

*

(1) JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT Shall Justice Robert D. Rucker be retained in office?

*

(2) JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT Shall Justice Steven H. David be retained in office?

*

(3) JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS Shall Judge Nancy H. Vaidik be retained in office?

*

(4) JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS Shall Judge Paul D. Mathias be retained in office?

*

(5) JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS Shall Judge Michael P. Barnes be retained in office?

*

*

You can learn more about these judges and what decisions they made on Indiana court cases here:

courts.IN.gov: Judicial Retention 2012

*

This is how I plan on voting for these judges and why.

*

1) Voting YES for Robert D. Rucker.

He was against the Barnes vs Indiana case (see more info below) saying police had no right to go inside the house WITHOUT a warrant.

*

2) Voting NO for Steven H. David.

In 2011 he wrote the ruling that said there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”

In the Barnes vs Indiana case (http://www.rasmusen.org/special/barnes/legislators.brief.pdf) Barnes was tased by police after entering his home unlawfully (WITHOUT a warrant)*due to a domestic dispute (no charges where ever brought for the domestic dispute).* Barnes told police they could not come into his home, the police still went into the home and tased him.

*

3) Voting NO for Nancy H. Vaidik

In 2012 she voted YES in the Heironimus v. State of Indiana case (http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11011203nhv.pdf).* In this case Heironimus was at a friend's house and the police once again went into the house without a warrant and identified*Heironimus and arrested him for crime he was wanted for.* Heironimus's attorney point out that the 4th ammendement applies in that privacy inside the home should have stopped the police from coming in.* Yet again like the Barnes case this judge believes that the police do NOT need a warrant to go into your house.

*

4) Voting NO for Judge Paul D. Mathias

This judge like judge Vaidik voted YES in the Heironimus v. State of Indiana.* This judge like Vadiik believes that police do NOT need a warrant to go into your house!

*

5) Voting NO for Judge Michael P. Barnes

This judge like judge Vaidik voted YES in the Heironimus v. State of Indiana.* This judge like Vadiik believes that police do NOT need a warrant to go into your house!

*

There are many more cases these judges have given an opion over.* I've looked at several others that I agree and disagree with but the Barnes and Heironimus cases for me show that these judges care less about you and me and more about violating our rights all under the umbrella of safety.

*

 

[Blackdog765]

David, YES
Rucker, NO
Baker, NO
Vaidik, NO

While my opinions vary some from other posts here, I would also like to present the idea that one would arguably want to evaluate their tenure upon additional items beyond 2A.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Anybody knowledgable of those judges up for retention in southern/mid Indiana? (District 1? IIRC)

 

[cobber]

I generally vote no on retention, just to be safe.

 

[TheReaper]

Yes for David, the Barnes decision was blown so out of proportion and most people that rant about it on here know nothing about it. We got SB1 or like eveyone want to call it "The right to resist bill" and all of that was total BS and just a knee jerk reation to a problem that never existed. Yes for David!

 

[jedi]

Yes for David, the Barnes decision was blown so out of proportion and most people that rant about it on here know nothing about it. We got SB1 or like eveyone want to call it "The right to resist bill" and all of that was total BS and just a knee jerk reation to a problem that never existed. Yes for David!

Does not matter to me that the legislators passed a new law to fix the damage the court did. What does matter is the menatlity/logic that david used on that case and others. He puts police (ie .gov) about the freedom of the people. In 2011 he clearly showed that.

 

[TheReaper]

Does not matter to me that the legislators passed a new law to fix the damage the court did. What does matter is the menatlity/logic that david used on that case and others. He puts police (ie .gov) about the freedom of the people. In 2011 he clearly showed that.

That in turn spreads ignorance, for example to ignorant people on this board that tell people that it is now legal to kill police that trespass on their property...that's a brilliant law!

The court did no damage, the Barnes decision HAD NO IMPACT ON INDIANA LAW! People just weren't smart enough to figure that out. They just had to act as though their law makers were their saviors to make it look as though they (the lawmakers) were doing their job.

 

[1911 DeadHead]

I still don't see how that could around the man's thought process. I've read the case. I voted no on them all....just to be safe.