June 11, 2025 • 51 mins
In this episode of Black Thought: The Spark, Pastor Gohlstin sit down with Ohio Supreme Court Justice Pat Fischer for an insightful conversation about the judicial system and its role in people’s everyday lives. Justice Fischer discusses how the courts can better serve the public, what he’s learned from the bench, and the one case that left a lasting impact on him.
From access to justice to public trust in the courts, this episode offers a rare, behind-the-scenes look at how decisions are made—and how the system can evolve to meet the needs of the people it’s meant to serve.
From access to justice to public trust in the courts, this episode offers a rare, behind-the-scenes look at how decisions are made—and how the system can evolve to meet the needs of the people it’s meant to serve.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
This is w O v U Studios.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Good afternoon.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
You're now listening to black thought. Everything must change to inform,
to inspire, and to impact on w O v U
ninety five point nine f M. This is the Rabbi along.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
With Trey on the board. Today.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Uni is out of here and we have a wonderful
guest with us. We are fortunate today to have in
the greater Cleveland area and here in the studio with
us our Chief Justice of the Okay, a Justice Okay
of the Ohio Supreme Court, Justice Patrick Fisher. For many
(00:49):
of our listeners, the Ohio Supreme Court may may may
be a little distant from us. We may not really
know who they are, what they do, and how they.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Operate.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
So Justice of Fisher, can you walk us through what
the court actually does and how it's decisions affect people
in their everyday lives.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Sure, it's we decide most cases. We decide which cases
we're going to take. Certain cases we are forced to
take by law.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
All right, Public.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Utilities Commission of how Power Siding board workers comp that's
a big deal.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Death.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
Apparently we by constitution or by statute, got to take
those cases boarded. Some tax appeals but like seventy eighty
percent of the cases we take, we decide, and what
happens is, say you try the case and you win
or lose, but you didn't like the result, so you appeal,
(02:00):
and it goes to the Court of Appeals, right, and
you can have all the assignments of error you want.
They got to deal with them. They got to rule,
because the state believes that at least you deserve one
appeal of everything.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
But let's say you.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
Have twenty and you lose on ten of them, and
the other side wants to appeal those. We're not going
to take ten issues. We're going to take one to two,
maybe three. They're called points of error or points of law,
propositions of law. And so it comes to us on
(02:39):
what's called emotion for jurisdiction, and the US Supreme Court
will be called emotion for cercaria. And we vote. Now,
the U. S. Supreme Court, you need four of the
nine vote to take case in and they take about
fifty cases a year, maybe sixty. We need four of seven.
We need a majority taken about eighty about twice as
(03:02):
many cases, maybe ninety, but you need a majority. So
then we order the record, which is what I wait for.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
I probably vote to.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
Bring in more cases than the other six justices, but
what I'm really waiting for is I want to see
the record, because I also vote mostly to more than
any by else, not mostly more than anybody else to
rule what's called IA improvidently allowed. I'd rather have the
case come in and then we read the record, and
(03:37):
not that lawyers would lie to us but misrepresent the
record a little bit. And IA means we took it
in we shouldn't have. But it gets past that. Then
they and we agree to take it in. Then they
filewer called briefs and the merits. So the appel went
(04:00):
user or the repellate court files their brief. Then the
appellee the winner at the pellate court files their brief,
and then the appellan gets to file a reply brief.
And all this takes about a year. Right then it's
set for oral argument. Then it's orally argued. Each side
(04:26):
gets fifteen minutes. Then we immediately go upstairs and vote
preliminary vote right and decide the case. And unlike the
US Supreme Court, which has the Chief Justice or the
senior Justice by years and the majority assigned, the author
(04:46):
We have a bottle. It's about one hundred, one hundred
and fifty years old, and it's made out leather, and
we put seven marbles in there, up to seven, but
you put the number like I'm number five if I'm
in the majority. Five goes into the bottle and you
shake it up and you pour it out, and first
one out writes the opinion. It's all it's all random, okay.
(05:07):
Then you send that around and that goes back and
forth with our editing office. Then you send it around
everybody and then they hold it or vote to prove
it some right to sense, some right, concurrences, whatever. So
that takes another six months. That's why it takes a
long time to get some Then we send it out
(05:27):
as a slip opinion. It becomes law. That's basically how
it works.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
So the Ohio Supreme Court does not adjudicate cases, but
they review a case that has been adjudicated appealed the
appeal was not necessarily agreed upon correct, and now it
comes to the Supreme Court for the purpose of whether
it's constitutional or okay.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Well, we look at cases or what's called a general
or public importance okay, or constitutional importments and that includes
not just federal constitution, includes state constitution, which a lot
of people don't even know we have. And like, I
can't we don't have a case penning, So I guess
(06:13):
I can say this. I think our free speech rights
under the state constitution are broader than under the First
Amendment to the US Constitution. The US Constitution is a minimum.
The states can have broader rights for people, and a
lot of people don't cite to our state constitution. I
(06:34):
think they're making a big mistake.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
Just to deter from that just a moment. So federal
versus state, Yes, all right, so which would take president?
Speaker 3 (06:46):
Well, the president would be the federal would be higher up.
But let's say that they have an issue involving freedom
of speech. Now that the state has to agree that
that's the minimum, but the state can give more. And
(07:11):
that's what happened. But a lot of people, if you
don't argue it, we're not going to We're not going
to look for you for your arguments. You got your
lawyers have to bring them to us. And for example,
the Fourteenth Amendment says that there shall be equal protection
under the law right. The guy who wrote it was
(07:33):
an Ohio congressman named Brigham, and the eighteen fifty one Constitution,
which is what Ohio's under says that governments are instituted
for the equal protection and benefit of their citizens, which
is much broader, you know, and people never raise it.
It's kind of.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Sad, I have. I'm going to come back to that, Okay.
I want to raise a question bit later about natural
law and legal all right, what types of cases are
typically come before of the House Supreme Court and how
(08:12):
is it different than other courts in the state.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
Well, other courts have to take everything. We have to
take certain cases, like I said, public utilities and a
few others, but then the other issues we get to
decide what we want to take, and we don't have
If you file an ap pellet appeal, it's got twenty
three issues. Pell court's got to deal with every one
(08:35):
of them. But like for example, there might be an
appeal to us with three propositions of law, but we
don't have to take all three. We can take one,
two or three of them. So if we want to
take any at all, and so I'd say about fifteen
hundred appeals a year, when take eighty maybe one hundred.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
What is the misconception that that most people have about
their house Supreme Court that you would maybe want to
clear up.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
The biggest thing I think needs cleared up is on
the TV and on radio and on the newspaper, you
really only read about the four to three decisions those
are close, and yet seventy some percent of our decisions
are unanimous Democrat Republican pointing it doesn't matter because you're
(09:31):
just applying the law to the facts, or at least
you're supposed to be. And thus seventy percent of the
time in the US Supreme Court, it's saying about eighty
percent of their cases are unanimous too, And I don't
think people believe that because the only ones that make
the news are the ones which are divisive. It's like,
(09:52):
if it's unanimous, it doesn't I guess it doesn't sell newspapers.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
Right, all right, So what inspired you to become a
pursued career in.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Law, Well, it is to be a lawyer.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
When I was in the eighth grade, my brother got
picked up for a drunk driving. I was in a
car with him, he hadn't had anything to drink. And
then when I was a little older, maybe a year later,
I stand in a street corner talking to some young women.
I was going to be late getting home, but all
(10:37):
of a sudden, three cop cars came up the gun.
The cops came out, all six of them, with their
guns drawn, threw me up against a wall, and arrested
me for allegedly shooting at a man who wasn't hit.
But I kept arguing with him that I didn't do anything.
So they brought the guy up, who hadn't been hit
by the gun and luckily came out of the cop car.
(10:59):
I was so happy I knew the guy. Guy's named
Bill Winches. He says, that's Pat Fisher. He couldn't hurt
a fly, And so to me, I wanted to be
a lawyer because and then later a judge because I
wanted to make sure that the law got enforced. And
as a judge, even though I'm kind of conservative in
(11:23):
a way, even Bloomberg Law noted that I listened to
both sides, and I do that because I saw what
happened when I was falsely arrested. If the police hadn't
at least given me a chance, they probably would have
taken me off to jail. And I didn't do anything
(11:44):
except talk to these teenage girls the corner and I
did go home. I blamed the police for being late,
and my dad yelled at him. He didn't yell at me,
for I would have been late anyway, but I got
away with it because.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
Of that trader. You have any questions for the judge.
Speaker 4 (12:00):
I was just gonna say that that is a very
compelling story. And you know, what better way to make
a difference than knowing that you were in that that
could have easily been you. And with the number of
I mean, it's hard to tell how many people are
in jail who shouldn't be because they're just you mentioned
the appeals.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
That it is, but a lot of people need to
be in jail. Sure, yeah, no doubt, but at least
listening to both sides, that's important. And like the thing
with my brother, what a drunk driving allegation. I was
out in the hallway. I don't know if people know,
but a trial, if you're a witness, you can't be
(12:42):
in the corporate Yes, while they're testifying, and a lot
of people because of TV, they let them do that.
Then that's not really happened. I was out in the hallway.
They opened the big wooden doors. I walked up that
red carpet. I love sitting there answering the lawyer's questions.
I really did. And I thought I could ask better questions,
and he asked. But that's just the ego of a
(13:03):
trial attorney.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
So what made you? What compelled you is to pursue
the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Well, I ran for Pella Court in Hammond County, Cincinnati
area twice and was successful. And people thought, well, you
write pretty well and you seem to listen to people.
You got to run statewide, so I did even before
they Now they got the like the R and D
(13:31):
behind your name if you're a Republican or a Democrat.
They didn't have that when I first ran. And I
just ran and I won, And I think I think
it's because I got endorsed by a lot of people
who liked the idea of the judge. Even if you
rule one way or the other, at least you listen
to both sides. And I think people just want to
(13:54):
be listened to. They just want to be heard, and
that's very important.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Well, you've been listening to judge from our Supreme Ohio
Supreme Court. Pat Fisher on Black thought everything must change,
to inform, to inspire, and to impact. On WOVU ninety
five point nine FM, we will be right back all right, people,
you're back here with black thought. Everything must change to inform,
(14:23):
to inspire, and to impact. This is the Rabbi along
with our Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Pat Fisher, Judge.
Were there any defining moments of people in your life
that help you shape your views on justice and fairness.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
In the incident?
Speaker 3 (14:42):
Yeah, well incident, yeah, I would say yes. There was
a guy named He was a Catholic priest named Ray Neman.
He started something called Campbell Lodge and just in northern Kentucky,
right across River Okay, and he made sure I didn't
(15:04):
hang out with my then two best friends from Junior
High who sold cocaine and pot, which was illegal at
the time. And he would take me down and meet
the governor and people like that. But he wanted me
not to hang with those guys. He was no longer
the head of Campbell Lodge, but he was now the
(15:25):
pastor at our church and he just he gave me
a summer job too. But he always said, no matter
what you do, just do the right thing. And if
you can't do that, you do the next right thing.
I think that'd have big influence on me.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
How has your background influenced your approach to interpreting the
law and serving the people of Ohio.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
I read a lot, which is good because in that
job you have to read about one hundred to five
hundred pages the day, and so I took a lot
of courses on reading comprehension and it has taught me
how to read and get the very basic issue. The
(16:16):
other day in court, I said to a god, I
forget what the question was, and he said, well, that's
a very interesting question. I said, that's why I asked
it because and he goes, well, it kind of goes
right to the matter, and I said, I know, I
don't want to waste time. Let's just talk about So.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
I think.
Speaker 3 (16:33):
Being good and reading comprehension helps me because you read
so much and you just want to go straight to
the issue. I mean, as a lawyer, I would take
time and kind of go away from stuff, especially if
the main issue wasn't helping my client. But you got
to go I mean, if he's the judge, you just
(16:53):
got to go for the jugular and get the real
issue done. And over with, because otherwise it just takes time.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
So as a lawyer, you kind of enjoyed the scenery
along the a're out. Well, the judges the destination.
Speaker 3 (17:09):
Yeah, but you know you may disagree with them. But
Chief Justice Roberts from the US Supreme Court was right.
The lawyers are kind of like the managers of the
baseball team, and they argue, okay, and you got to
you that's your job is to represent your clients to
the best of your ability. But the judges like the empire. Okay,
(17:31):
you gotta make a decision and move on and call
the shots, call the shots, strikes, balls out, safe, whatever,
And you really got to do that.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
Many people, especially those in the black communities, underserved communities,
feel disconnected from the legal system. What are some of
the ways of Ohio Supreme Court, even the justice and
justices themselves can better engage with the communities.
Speaker 3 (18:01):
Well, first things, do things like this, just answer questions
on the radio or TV or something. I think I
think a lot of people don't want they they become justices.
They don't want to answer questions because what we, like
I said, we asked questions. That's what we do for
(18:22):
a living. But I think we should be answering more
questions because then we know how people are thinking and
what's important to people. Because you learn from what people say,
what they ask, and how they ask it for that matter,
and you learn a lot. So I think the justices
(18:45):
need to get I'm not in the Ivory Tower that much, okay,
because I'm out in the community talking and doing stuff.
But I think, especially the US Supreme Court, they're kind
of in Ivory Tower, and I think I think they
should just like when they go to a ballgame, not
sit in the owner's box. I think that's sit with
(19:07):
the people, watch the game, and I think that's important.
And I think you can't think you yourself is different
or apart from the people. You're just a person that
came by.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
A little different jobs.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
Just I got a job with lawyers got a job,
the stenographers got a job, court reporters got a job.
Doesn't matter. The technician has a job. Everybody has a job.
Just do it and do it well.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
Do you find that the other justices on this Ohio
Supreme Court maybe have some similar feelings.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
No, I think most of them are out in the
community because I think the federal system, you're appointed and
you never have to run for re election. And I
think a lot of people think that's a better way
of having appointing judges or electing judges. I think electing
I it's better because it forces you to go out
(20:02):
and meet with people and know what the community is doing,
or you can be fired or the next election, Yeah,
which is not a bad thing. So I know a
lot of people think appointment felt like in the federal
systems better buy don't I think the election is better.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
Why is it important for everyday people, especially in neighborhoods
like ours, to pay attention to what happens in the courts.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
Oh, it's very important.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
Remember I told you we do a lot of public
utilities commission cases. It may only affect your own personal
bill nine bucks a month or five bucks a month,
but think about the whole state, or your community, even
your community. If it's a small electrical company, you know,
(20:57):
rural electrification or local electrification, that's a lot of money. Actually,
five bucks a month, sixty dollars a year doesn't sound
like a whole lot, but when you got tens of
thousands of people doing it, that's a lot of money.
And similarly, the power Sighting Board decides where people put
(21:18):
wind turbines, yes, and waters turbines and things like that.
It has a direct effect or even the death penalty.
I mean, whether a person lives or dies, big deal.
I think.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
So.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
I think you're saying to our listening audience that it's
important that they be aware and be involved.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
Got to be okay, got to be involved, because like
I can walk down the street in Columbus and unless
it's a member of the legislature, nobody knows who I am,
which in some ways is good, but in some ways
it's not good because that means people aren't paying attention.
And if they're not paying attention, they don't even know
(22:05):
what we're hearing. And it's on our website. You can
see all the cases and you just press on it,
click on it. These young people know how to do it,
and they can see the docket, they can see the pleadings,
they can see the briefs, and you can watch it
in Ohio. I think in the federal system now it's
audio you can listen, but for years there's nothing in
(22:30):
ours since five maybe it's all videoed and hear it.
And I told a bunch of lawyers one time, some
of them don't even know where to stand. I said,
that's like malpractice. All you got to do is go
on our website and you can see you can see
all of it. And if so, if you're interested in
the issue, let's say I don't know workers comp you
(22:53):
can pull up every one of those arguments and see
what questions were asked, what the issues were. And I
think that's important.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
People.
Speaker 1 (23:02):
Let's let's let's take a look at the human side
of justice. Okay, Can you share an example of a
case or a decision that reminded you of why the
work of the court matters so deeply.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
To real people. Yes, not to say that you're not real, No,
I'm real.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
I was telling somebody I had a brainwave test done
recently and the doctor want to see what my brainwaves
were doing. My wife just went to see if I
had a brain so both were confirmed as fine. So
but for real people, I remember a case. I will
always remember first death penalty case. And people don't realize
(23:44):
in the United States you need to know right from wrong.
That means you're sane before the day of your execution,
not just the day you commit the crime. Like down
South somewhere Alabama or somewhere they give you drugs to
make you say for the one day to execute you.
Now Ohio doesn't do that. That's not fair, not right.
(24:05):
But this case, this guy got a pistol and a shotgun.
He waited under the steps of the apartment building for
the ex girlfriend's party to be over. He knocked on
the door. I remember all this, and the new boyfriend
came to the door. He wounded him. He confessed all
(24:28):
this in the forensics. The science all backed it up.
So he shot him a little bit and threw him
on the floor in the living room. The young woman
knew what was going on. She tried to get out
the bedroom window. He pulled her back in, wounded her
through her on the floor. Then told the young man
to kneel down and pray to his God because he's
(24:48):
going to see him in a few seconds, and put
two bullets in his head. And then I got warned.
People on the radio is you're not going to like
what this sounds like, but so trigger warned or whatever
you want to call it. He then took the shotgun
and jammed it up her women's parts and pulled the
trigger and watched.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
Her bleed to death. Oh my goodness, I will never
forget that case.
Speaker 3 (25:08):
And my wife knew. I was so worried about it,
but she said, hey, she called me up, said hey,
he made a final statement. I couldn't hear it on
the radio. Look it up.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
So I did.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
And he wrote a letter his last day to the
parents of the two kids of the two young people
he killed, apologizing for what he did, say he was
sorry and he knew he was wrong, and that I
forget that case. I mean it was the facts are bad,
but it made me feel good because I don't know exactly.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
What it was.
Speaker 3 (25:41):
It was the weekend my daughter's graduation from law school,
and I went to her graduation, but I didn't go
to any of the parties or anything, because I went
through twenty seven years of records of that guy to
make sure that he knew right from wrong before they
executed him. And he did it because he wrote the
letter saying I knew I was wrong. I will never
(26:01):
forget that.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
Judge, how do you how do you balance compassion with
common sense when when you're having to make tough decisions?
Speaker 3 (26:28):
How do you go ahead? Uh, you don't do it?
The same for every case, because each case is different.
I mean, there's very few cases that are kind of
the same as the last one. But you you've got
to put into the mix the wording of the statute
(26:50):
or the constitution. You got to put in their prior
case law, you got to put in their common sense,
you got throw in some logic, and then after all that,
then you does it feel right? That's the compassion, like
I said about you know, father and nemon, you know,
(27:12):
do the right thing and if you can't do that,
then do the next right thing. And that's when that
comes in. I don't I don't know if weighing is
the right word. Maybe it is, but is it still right?
Because you could have a statue that's you know, ninety
nine percent of the time correct and whatever. You know,
(27:36):
all the facts are bad, but for some reason, some reason,
you need to go the other way. And you're a
human being, Yes you will, you will realize it in
your heart. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes you got
(27:56):
to overlook the common sense. What about personal biases, Well,
you always have personal biases, but you try to not
to use them or you know, let them do anything.
But you also it's the reason the highest court, court
to last resort, it's called in each state and in
the United States has more than one judge or more
(28:16):
than three. The US Spring Court has nine. We got seven.
It's so that those individual biases kind of get out
witted because there's enough people pointing to different things that
any individual bias. It's kind of like some of the
(28:40):
Olympic sports. I think it's skating ice skating, the top
vote and the bottom boat get knocked out and then
the average. And that's what kind of happens when you
have seven. The extremes on either end, they might write
a descent, but it's the majority in the middle that matter,
and so it kind of kind of prevents that from happening.
Speaker 2 (29:03):
What happens if you have kind of all extremest.
Speaker 3 (29:07):
Well, then it does happen rarely, but it does happen,
but then you don't get a decision, no decision. The
other day the US Supreme Court maybe was Cony Barrett.
Somebody couldn't vote. It was four to four, no decision.
Because you need to foth vote to overcome the prior decision.
(29:30):
You need a majority, and thus sometimes you'll see something
what we call a lead opinion maybe has three votes,
then a concurrence in judgment only that means they agree,
but for different reason than to the sense it's it
could be all over the place. But that then does
(29:51):
not become the law on that subject. And so it
gives the lawyer of the lawyers more to do. I
guess gives them more.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
That's okay, that's confusing to me. Okay, I thought we
were determining whether something, maybe it was constitutional or not. Well,
I think you said the individual right, Okay, all right.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
But then if you can't get in Ohio, if you
can't get four votes on the same thing, it's not law.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
It's not law. But how you know? Then then your
quality legislators.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
No, okay, you do nothing. Okay, nothing happens. The only
thing becomes law.
Speaker 1 (30:30):
Is but just But if if you have a majority opinion, yeah,
and it becomes law, that you're kind of quality legislators.
Speaker 3 (30:40):
No, no, because often you're enforcing what the legislature said. Okay,
I joke with my legislative friends, I say, keep keep
those ambiguous statutes, give us something to do. But no,
it's not we're I mean that's called substance of due process.
And the problem with it is you can go any way. Substance.
(31:03):
Due process brought your plus TV ferguson separate but equal,
but also brought your brown versus Board educations, which was
a good thing. So you don't want the courts to
overtake the legislature, but especially for black people, the courts
(31:26):
have had to because the legislature, like the US Senate
in the fifties and sixties, wouldn't do anything about civil rights,
so you had to go to the courts. But the
courts generally don't do that. You don't and you don't
want it because you know why, at least in the
(31:47):
legislative session, if they have a committee hearing, all the
groups that have few points get to testify, while in
our cases it's one side against the other, and they
may not want the majority opinion, so the majority viewpoints
so you and you don't get all the evidence that
you get in a congressional committee hearing, and so you
(32:09):
can't really give a true opinion. It they call the
executive branch and the legislative branch of the political branches
of government, and they call us the judicial branch, the
legal branch. And it's for a reason because we can't
we're not equipped to take in all those arguments because
we only have two parties and they may not be
(32:32):
either party wanting what's the majority of the people in
the country want.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
What? What's What's one thing you would love for people
to walk away because you've been on this program today.
Speaker 3 (32:47):
One thing that we listen and that's our job. Even
if you lose, you gotta you gotta have a court
that listens to you and that we generally do. And
if you know what else, you can watch us. We're
live streamed, So if you're not listening to w O
(33:11):
v U at nine o'clock on a Tuesday morning, not
every Tuesday, but when we're doing it, uh and Wednesday mornings,
you could watch us live. And I think people I
wish more people would do that because they're kind of scared.
I don't know if that's the right word. We're frightened.
They don't understand. But if the night before they would
(33:33):
read the briefs we'll say, merit brief, appellance, merit brief, appelles,
merit brief, and then watch the oral argument, they would
learn a lot about their government a.
Speaker 2 (33:44):
Lot mm hmm.
Speaker 1 (33:51):
We We we struggle sometimes with the uh, the appearance
of do process right, legislative and judicial. How does the
Ohio Supreme Court make sure that the law is applied
fairly across all counties, regardless of political and economic differences.
Speaker 3 (34:14):
One of the ways we do that is there's a law,
and we have rules that court rules that pick it up.
Say the first district, which is Cincinnati, says the law
is X, and and on the third district, which is
based in Lima, says the law is negative X. We
(34:37):
take those cases and that's one of the things we
do do and said, no, the law is X or
negative X for the whole state, because otherwise people in
line would be getting different results than people in Cincinnati.
And that's that's not right. You got to you gotta
be consistent. And so one of our jobs. And the
(34:58):
US Supreme Court does this too. They might take the
first district, which is Boston, and the sixth District, I
mean circuit, first circuit in Boston, sixth Circuit and Cincinnati,
and they'll say there's a difference in the circuits the reserve.
What's They'll resolve what's called a circuit split. We the
highest Preme Court resolve what's called a district split between
(35:20):
two districts. Who knows what. I don't know what it
would be. But you got to make sure that things
are standardized in the law because otherwise, what if you're
you know, let's say the first and third districts. You
have a company that sells that makes something in linement,
(35:42):
the chemical plant, but it's sold in Cincinnati, which you know,
which law would apply. You know, it's it's very complicated.
Speaker 1 (35:53):
Sometimes that brings us back around there, Okay, to a
general assembly making legal laws. Yes, they do to circumvent
natural law, they do, all right, would you speak to.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
That was sure to me.
Speaker 3 (36:10):
And let's make sure we're talking about the same natural
law as God given yes, okay, okay. Always tell people
look at this the Declaration of Independence, which is based
upon natural law, inalienable right to life, liberty, and pursuit
of happiness. By the way, Article one, Section one of
(36:31):
the state Constitution incorporates that into the Ohio Constitution. Most
states don't have that. But that's natural law, that's God
given statutory law, which is earth, which is what the
legislation does. They they write things like you can't go
(36:53):
more than sixty five miles per hour in the interstate
that has a county with more than five thousand people
or whatever it is, I forget. But that's the difference
is they're not God, and natural law comes from God.
And I think they call you a rabbi, I mean God.
(37:17):
It's something that's just in human nature. Like now they
may create. You have a right to what in Ohio
is called self defense. Somebody's going to shoot you, you're
a right to shoot them first. Well, God believes in life, right, Well,
(37:37):
who has a right to live? And so the legislature
has decided that you have a right to defend your
life so that you don't die. So they're kind of
fulfilling natural law, but they're they're because other states don't
have the same self defense laws that Ohio has. Or
(38:02):
I don't know. You got you give a son or
a daughter you want to teach or to give them
something as you grow old, right or so they can
inherit it. Each state has its own probate laws, and
that deals with money. But you are me. I want
to give my daughter knowledge, belief and right and wrong.
(38:27):
There's no way you can break that down. And so
that's the natural law versus Okay, the House goes to
the sun and the bank account goes to the daughter
or whatever.
Speaker 2 (38:41):
I mean.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
It's the difference between God given things and and that's
why they call it natural law because a lot some
people don't believe in God, but versus statutory law, because
statutes distinguish human being rights and obligations while God has
(39:08):
other ideas.
Speaker 1 (39:11):
All right, listen, we're gonna come back. You have been
listening to Judge Fisher of the Ohio Supreme Court along.
We're here with Rabbi on Black Thought, informed to inspire
and to impact on w OVU ninety five point nine FM.
Speaker 2 (39:27):
We will be right back.
Speaker 1 (39:28):
All right, people, you're back here with Black Thought. Everything
must change on w OVU. This is the Rabbi along
with Justice Patrick Fisher of the Ohio Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (39:40):
Betray you. You had a question, I think that you
wanted to ask.
Speaker 4 (39:44):
So you mentioned the executive in the legislature branches being quote,
the political branches and the judicial branch being that. Do
you think that there are any any one of those branches.
Theoretically they're all supposed to have equal power in your opinion,
do any of those branches have more power in practicing
(40:07):
any of them?
Speaker 3 (40:08):
They should have checks and balances to check each other. Now,
the legislative branch has what's called the power of the
purse because they control the money and taxes and things
like that. Then you got the executive branch, which is
more of the military and law enforcement. Right, it's called
(40:31):
the power of the gun. It used to be the
power of the sword, but it's the power of the gun.
And then they got us, and we have the power
of reason. And in a democracy, reason really matters. And
that's why I was in Vietnam last summer. That's a dictatorship,
(40:56):
communist dictatorship. Supreme court always rules the government wants them
to rule. But you don't see that here. Sometimes the
court's rule against the government or against some top person. Right,
and in Ohio, the former Speaker of the House, I
(41:19):
forget his name, householder. Maybe he's in jail. I mean,
you wouldn't find that in some of these other countries
that don't have that separate power, the power of reason.
So but you check and balance it. So if the
constitution state constitution doesn't permit. For example, they're trying to
(41:41):
amend the state constitution to limit property damage property taxes
for people over sixty or sixty five. I forget what
it is they want to limit it because people that age,
they may own property that's gone up in value, but
they don't have the cash to pay the taxes. But
let's say city councilor board education raises taxes on those people,
(42:04):
and yet that's past that. I don't know if it
will or won't. But you got the executive branch, you
got the legislate branch saying you can't do that. You
got the executive branch trying to take people's money, but
you got the court saying no, you would have them
in that situation and therefore they wouldn't be collected. It's
(42:25):
it's it's no power is greater than the others. It's
that they're different powers. And and that's what people need
to think about.
Speaker 1 (42:37):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (42:39):
And that's why you need those separation because any government
where all those powers are together, you have a dictatorship
of monarchy, whatever you want to call it. And it's
just that's not America.
Speaker 1 (42:54):
The community, judicial, activism, and interpretation. Could you define those
for us? And then where do you fall.
Speaker 3 (43:05):
I'm strict, I'm not strict interpretation, but I'm textualist textualist
reads the statute and enforces it as written.
Speaker 2 (43:19):
Now.
Speaker 3 (43:21):
Even among textualists are originalists who look at what the
language meant when the law was passed or when the
constitution was passed. I look at what the words mean today.
So it sometimes the words change meaning and sometimes they don't.
Speaker 2 (43:43):
The other what was the other?
Speaker 3 (43:44):
You had somebody else?
Speaker 2 (43:45):
Strict interpretation, strict interpretation and.
Speaker 3 (43:50):
Judicial activist judicial activists see to me, I don't believe
in judicial activism, whether it's conservative or liberal, for the
reason I earlier said, we can't take into account all
the factors. The legislature can to pass the law, and
(44:11):
the two parties in the lawsuit they may not care
or you know, they're not going to present all the
information we need to make those decisions. So whether it's
conservative activism or liberal activism, it's not good because if
we say, well, that law is unconstitutional, we don't rewrite
(44:34):
it for the legislature. We let them hold hearings and
take into account, and then they write it again themselves
and may or may not be constitutional again. So in
my view, it's better to let them do it than
have us do it, because we don't get all the
information they do.
Speaker 2 (44:56):
Can can.
Speaker 1 (44:59):
You may not be Can you speak to the issue
of of the fiasco I feel of the redistricting process
that taking place in.
Speaker 3 (45:09):
I can't just for the only reason that I read
on the way yes last night, that they're going to
start having redistricting meetings again this summer, so it'll come
to us and all right time October. I better not.
Speaker 2 (45:23):
I'd like to yes, all right, but I can't.
Speaker 3 (45:26):
I understand, Okay, I'd be unethical, Okay, all right.
Speaker 1 (45:29):
How does the public opinion or the media coverage impact,
if at all, how cases are viewed inside of the court?
Speaker 2 (45:38):
Zero zero.
Speaker 3 (45:40):
You can't let media public opinion make your decisions for you,
because sometimes the legislature has written the law that may
be constitutional and may be adverse to what public opinion is.
And if the public opinion wants to change, they need
(46:02):
to change the legislature. And even if I hate the law,
I've I've enforced some laws that I can't say which
because I'm not allowed to, but uh, which I would
never have voted for if I was in the legislature.
But if it's constitutional and the legislature has passed it,
(46:25):
I have to enforce it. Even if I don't like it,
and and and that happened a lot in the sixties.
There were some Southern members of the US Supreme Court
that did not want to enforce civil rights laws, but
they had no choice. They had to do it.
Speaker 2 (46:46):
But let's rewind just bit.
Speaker 1 (46:49):
So if if, if, if the trend is to change
the meaning of a word, okay, then that the meaning
of certain words the narrative now changes. Okay, Yeah, you
(47:12):
know I'm getting I'm getting a feeling that certain rights
that was intended in seventeen seventy six, okay, are not
really the wording is not necessarily the same as uttered today, correct,
all right, So how do we take and reconcile?
Speaker 3 (47:35):
That's what the court opinions. The court opinions then say, like,
for example, freedom of the press. There was no radio
or TV right in seventeen eighty eight or whatever constitutions passed.
(47:55):
But you take free press that was permitted for the
newspapers at the time and apply it to radio and TV.
Even though under the FCC Act Federal Communications Act, the
people don't control the airways. It's owned by the government.
Speaker 2 (48:18):
Okay, all right, But.
Speaker 3 (48:21):
If you if you changed it, then you would let
the government run radio and TV, and we don't do that.
CBS or ABC or whoever have their own editorials, and
it's or this place. You wouldn't want to tell people
here how to what they need to think.
Speaker 2 (48:42):
But I have.
Speaker 1 (48:42):
But I have my own podcast equipment in my car
and I can you know.
Speaker 3 (48:47):
And you can broadcast and if people agree with you, fine,
If they don't, that's fine too. It's just the same
as somebody writing a newspaper article, agree with it. Or
My grandfather used to say, read this editor oriol. He
got the Chicago Tribune. He lived outside Chicago, and whatever
editorial he gave me, I would he goes, what do
you think of that? And I'd take a position I
(49:09):
was eleven or twelve. He would always take the opposite.
But it taught me how to argue and think and
learn from the other side's viewpoint too. It was a
good thing for a young person who eventually became a
lawyer to understand.
Speaker 2 (49:27):
Okay, trade you any lasts.
Speaker 4 (49:32):
Was this all enlightening about the but the judicial process,
the three branches, how you can kind of learn from
each other. You take in one position, partner taking the
other position.
Speaker 3 (49:48):
Think, think about this let's say we say the statute's unconstitutional.
What happens the legislature often passes a new law, but
the governor has to sign it. Yes, and if we agree,
then that's the law. You got all three branches saying
that's the law, and that's the way it should be.
(50:11):
But because you don't want any one person or any
one branch controlling it all.
Speaker 1 (50:18):
Well, you know that that that's going to bring us
to another point that I'm gonna have to bring you
back to another show, because you know, you know, if
all three, all three branches agree yet it's wrong for
the people.
Speaker 3 (50:39):
Then the people can throw out the executive and the
legislative and in Ohio they can throw out the.
Speaker 2 (50:45):
Judicial visa v. Jim Crow, laws.
Speaker 3 (50:48):
Versus versus by elections. Yes, okay, And that's why elections
are so important people. You know, people complain to me
about things and I'll ask them did you vote, And
they'll say no. I'll say, well, if you voted, you
can complain to me. But if you don't vote, don't
complain to me.
Speaker 1 (51:06):
Well, we're gonna have to do this again. Okay, Judge,
that'd be great. It's been good having you here. Thank you.
For answering our questions. Thanks for having me all right.
You have been listening to black Thought. Everything must change.
On w O v U ninety five point nine FM.
I will drink from my part of the river, and
(51:26):
no one shall keep me from it until next time.
Speaker 2 (51:29):
Shalom Haabbah.
Speaker 1 (51:34):
This is w O v U Studios.
This is w O v U Studios.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Good afternoon.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
You're now listening to black thought. Everything must change to inform,
to inspire, and to impact on w O v U
ninety five point nine f M. This is the Rabbi along.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
With Trey on the board. Today.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Uni is out of here and we have a wonderful
guest with us. We are fortunate today to have in
the greater Cleveland area and here in the studio with
us our Chief Justice of the Okay, a Justice Okay
of the Ohio Supreme Court, Justice Patrick Fisher. For many
(00:49):
of our listeners, the Ohio Supreme Court may may may
be a little distant from us. We may not really
know who they are, what they do, and how they.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Operate.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
So Justice of Fisher, can you walk us through what
the court actually does and how it's decisions affect people
in their everyday lives.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Sure, it's we decide most cases. We decide which cases
we're going to take. Certain cases we are forced to
take by law.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
All right, Public.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Utilities Commission of how Power Siding board workers comp that's
a big deal.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Death.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
Apparently we by constitution or by statute, got to take
those cases boarded. Some tax appeals but like seventy eighty
percent of the cases we take, we decide, and what
happens is, say you try the case and you win
or lose, but you didn't like the result, so you appeal,
(02:00):
and it goes to the Court of Appeals, right, and
you can have all the assignments of error you want.
They got to deal with them. They got to rule,
because the state believes that at least you deserve one
appeal of everything.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
But let's say you.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
Have twenty and you lose on ten of them, and
the other side wants to appeal those. We're not going
to take ten issues. We're going to take one to two,
maybe three. They're called points of error or points of law,
propositions of law. And so it comes to us on
(02:39):
what's called emotion for jurisdiction, and the US Supreme Court
will be called emotion for cercaria. And we vote. Now,
the U. S. Supreme Court, you need four of the
nine vote to take case in and they take about
fifty cases a year, maybe sixty. We need four of seven.
We need a majority taken about eighty about twice as
(03:02):
many cases, maybe ninety, but you need a majority. So
then we order the record, which is what I wait for.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
I probably vote to.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
Bring in more cases than the other six justices, but
what I'm really waiting for is I want to see
the record, because I also vote mostly to more than
any by else, not mostly more than anybody else to
rule what's called IA improvidently allowed. I'd rather have the
case come in and then we read the record, and
(03:37):
not that lawyers would lie to us but misrepresent the
record a little bit. And IA means we took it
in we shouldn't have. But it gets past that. Then
they and we agree to take it in. Then they
filewer called briefs and the merits. So the appel went
(04:00):
user or the repellate court files their brief. Then the
appellee the winner at the pellate court files their brief,
and then the appellan gets to file a reply brief.
And all this takes about a year. Right then it's
set for oral argument. Then it's orally argued. Each side
(04:26):
gets fifteen minutes. Then we immediately go upstairs and vote
preliminary vote right and decide the case. And unlike the
US Supreme Court, which has the Chief Justice or the
senior Justice by years and the majority assigned, the author
(04:46):
We have a bottle. It's about one hundred, one hundred
and fifty years old, and it's made out leather, and
we put seven marbles in there, up to seven, but
you put the number like I'm number five if I'm
in the majority. Five goes into the bottle and you
shake it up and you pour it out, and first
one out writes the opinion. It's all it's all random, okay.
(05:07):
Then you send that around and that goes back and
forth with our editing office. Then you send it around
everybody and then they hold it or vote to prove
it some right to sense, some right, concurrences, whatever. So
that takes another six months. That's why it takes a
long time to get some Then we send it out
(05:27):
as a slip opinion. It becomes law. That's basically how
it works.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
So the Ohio Supreme Court does not adjudicate cases, but
they review a case that has been adjudicated appealed the
appeal was not necessarily agreed upon correct, and now it
comes to the Supreme Court for the purpose of whether
it's constitutional or okay.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Well, we look at cases or what's called a general
or public importance okay, or constitutional importments and that includes
not just federal constitution, includes state constitution, which a lot
of people don't even know we have. And like, I
can't we don't have a case penning, So I guess
(06:13):
I can say this. I think our free speech rights
under the state constitution are broader than under the First
Amendment to the US Constitution. The US Constitution is a minimum.
The states can have broader rights for people, and a
lot of people don't cite to our state constitution. I
(06:34):
think they're making a big mistake.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
Just to deter from that just a moment. So federal
versus state, Yes, all right, so which would take president?
Speaker 3 (06:46):
Well, the president would be the federal would be higher up.
But let's say that they have an issue involving freedom
of speech. Now that the state has to agree that
that's the minimum, but the state can give more. And
(07:11):
that's what happened. But a lot of people, if you
don't argue it, we're not going to We're not going
to look for you for your arguments. You got your
lawyers have to bring them to us. And for example,
the Fourteenth Amendment says that there shall be equal protection
under the law right. The guy who wrote it was
(07:33):
an Ohio congressman named Brigham, and the eighteen fifty one Constitution,
which is what Ohio's under says that governments are instituted
for the equal protection and benefit of their citizens, which
is much broader, you know, and people never raise it.
It's kind of.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Sad, I have. I'm going to come back to that, Okay.
I want to raise a question bit later about natural
law and legal all right, what types of cases are
typically come before of the House Supreme Court and how
(08:12):
is it different than other courts in the state.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
Well, other courts have to take everything. We have to
take certain cases, like I said, public utilities and a
few others, but then the other issues we get to
decide what we want to take, and we don't have
If you file an ap pellet appeal, it's got twenty
three issues. Pell court's got to deal with every one
(08:35):
of them. But like for example, there might be an
appeal to us with three propositions of law, but we
don't have to take all three. We can take one,
two or three of them. So if we want to
take any at all, and so I'd say about fifteen
hundred appeals a year, when take eighty maybe one hundred.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
What is the misconception that that most people have about
their house Supreme Court that you would maybe want to
clear up.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
The biggest thing I think needs cleared up is on
the TV and on radio and on the newspaper, you
really only read about the four to three decisions those
are close, and yet seventy some percent of our decisions
are unanimous Democrat Republican pointing it doesn't matter because you're
(09:31):
just applying the law to the facts, or at least
you're supposed to be. And thus seventy percent of the
time in the US Supreme Court, it's saying about eighty
percent of their cases are unanimous too, And I don't
think people believe that because the only ones that make
the news are the ones which are divisive. It's like,
(09:52):
if it's unanimous, it doesn't I guess it doesn't sell newspapers.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
Right, all right, So what inspired you to become a
pursued career in.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Law, Well, it is to be a lawyer.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
When I was in the eighth grade, my brother got
picked up for a drunk driving. I was in a
car with him, he hadn't had anything to drink. And
then when I was a little older, maybe a year later,
I stand in a street corner talking to some young women.
I was going to be late getting home, but all
(10:37):
of a sudden, three cop cars came up the gun.
The cops came out, all six of them, with their
guns drawn, threw me up against a wall, and arrested
me for allegedly shooting at a man who wasn't hit.
But I kept arguing with him that I didn't do anything.
So they brought the guy up, who hadn't been hit
by the gun and luckily came out of the cop car.
(10:59):
I was so happy I knew the guy. Guy's named
Bill Winches. He says, that's Pat Fisher. He couldn't hurt
a fly, And so to me, I wanted to be
a lawyer because and then later a judge because I
wanted to make sure that the law got enforced. And
as a judge, even though I'm kind of conservative in
(11:23):
a way, even Bloomberg Law noted that I listened to
both sides, and I do that because I saw what
happened when I was falsely arrested. If the police hadn't
at least given me a chance, they probably would have
taken me off to jail. And I didn't do anything
(11:44):
except talk to these teenage girls the corner and I
did go home. I blamed the police for being late,
and my dad yelled at him. He didn't yell at me,
for I would have been late anyway, but I got
away with it because.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
Of that trader. You have any questions for the judge.
Speaker 4 (12:00):
I was just gonna say that that is a very
compelling story. And you know, what better way to make
a difference than knowing that you were in that that
could have easily been you. And with the number of
I mean, it's hard to tell how many people are
in jail who shouldn't be because they're just you mentioned
the appeals.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
That it is, but a lot of people need to
be in jail. Sure, yeah, no doubt, but at least
listening to both sides, that's important. And like the thing
with my brother, what a drunk driving allegation. I was
out in the hallway. I don't know if people know,
but a trial, if you're a witness, you can't be
(12:42):
in the corporate Yes, while they're testifying, and a lot
of people because of TV, they let them do that.
Then that's not really happened. I was out in the hallway.
They opened the big wooden doors. I walked up that
red carpet. I love sitting there answering the lawyer's questions.
I really did. And I thought I could ask better questions,
and he asked. But that's just the ego of a
(13:03):
trial attorney.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
So what made you? What compelled you is to pursue
the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Well, I ran for Pella Court in Hammond County, Cincinnati
area twice and was successful. And people thought, well, you
write pretty well and you seem to listen to people.
You got to run statewide, so I did even before
they Now they got the like the R and D
(13:31):
behind your name if you're a Republican or a Democrat.
They didn't have that when I first ran. And I
just ran and I won, And I think I think
it's because I got endorsed by a lot of people
who liked the idea of the judge. Even if you
rule one way or the other, at least you listen
to both sides. And I think people just want to
(13:54):
be listened to. They just want to be heard, and
that's very important.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Well, you've been listening to judge from our Supreme Ohio
Supreme Court. Pat Fisher on Black thought everything must change,
to inform, to inspire, and to impact. On WOVU ninety
five point nine FM, we will be right back all right, people,
you're back here with black thought. Everything must change to inform,
(14:23):
to inspire, and to impact. This is the Rabbi along
with our Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Pat Fisher, Judge.
Were there any defining moments of people in your life
that help you shape your views on justice and fairness.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
In the incident?
Speaker 3 (14:42):
Yeah, well incident, yeah, I would say yes. There was
a guy named He was a Catholic priest named Ray Neman.
He started something called Campbell Lodge and just in northern Kentucky,
right across River Okay, and he made sure I didn't
(15:04):
hang out with my then two best friends from Junior
High who sold cocaine and pot, which was illegal at
the time. And he would take me down and meet
the governor and people like that. But he wanted me
not to hang with those guys. He was no longer
the head of Campbell Lodge, but he was now the
(15:25):
pastor at our church and he just he gave me
a summer job too. But he always said, no matter
what you do, just do the right thing. And if
you can't do that, you do the next right thing.
I think that'd have big influence on me.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
How has your background influenced your approach to interpreting the
law and serving the people of Ohio.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
I read a lot, which is good because in that
job you have to read about one hundred to five
hundred pages the day, and so I took a lot
of courses on reading comprehension and it has taught me
how to read and get the very basic issue. The
(16:16):
other day in court, I said to a god, I
forget what the question was, and he said, well, that's
a very interesting question. I said, that's why I asked
it because and he goes, well, it kind of goes
right to the matter, and I said, I know, I
don't want to waste time. Let's just talk about So.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
I think.
Speaker 3 (16:33):
Being good and reading comprehension helps me because you read
so much and you just want to go straight to
the issue. I mean, as a lawyer, I would take
time and kind of go away from stuff, especially if
the main issue wasn't helping my client. But you got
to go I mean, if he's the judge, you just
(16:53):
got to go for the jugular and get the real
issue done. And over with, because otherwise it just takes time.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
So as a lawyer, you kind of enjoyed the scenery
along the a're out. Well, the judges the destination.
Speaker 3 (17:09):
Yeah, but you know you may disagree with them. But
Chief Justice Roberts from the US Supreme Court was right.
The lawyers are kind of like the managers of the
baseball team, and they argue, okay, and you got to
you that's your job is to represent your clients to
the best of your ability. But the judges like the empire. Okay,
(17:31):
you gotta make a decision and move on and call
the shots, call the shots, strikes, balls out, safe, whatever,
And you really got to do that.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
Many people, especially those in the black communities, underserved communities,
feel disconnected from the legal system. What are some of
the ways of Ohio Supreme Court, even the justice and
justices themselves can better engage with the communities.
Speaker 3 (18:01):
Well, first things, do things like this, just answer questions
on the radio or TV or something. I think I
think a lot of people don't want they they become justices.
They don't want to answer questions because what we, like
I said, we asked questions. That's what we do for
(18:22):
a living. But I think we should be answering more
questions because then we know how people are thinking and
what's important to people. Because you learn from what people say,
what they ask, and how they ask it for that matter,
and you learn a lot. So I think the justices
(18:45):
need to get I'm not in the Ivory Tower that much, okay,
because I'm out in the community talking and doing stuff.
But I think, especially the US Supreme Court, they're kind
of in Ivory Tower, and I think I think they
should just like when they go to a ballgame, not
sit in the owner's box. I think that's sit with
(19:07):
the people, watch the game, and I think that's important.
And I think you can't think you yourself is different
or apart from the people. You're just a person that
came by.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
A little different jobs.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
Just I got a job with lawyers got a job,
the stenographers got a job, court reporters got a job.
Doesn't matter. The technician has a job. Everybody has a job.
Just do it and do it well.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
Do you find that the other justices on this Ohio
Supreme Court maybe have some similar feelings.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
No, I think most of them are out in the
community because I think the federal system, you're appointed and
you never have to run for re election. And I
think a lot of people think that's a better way
of having appointing judges or electing judges. I think electing
I it's better because it forces you to go out
(20:02):
and meet with people and know what the community is doing,
or you can be fired or the next election, Yeah,
which is not a bad thing. So I know a
lot of people think appointment felt like in the federal
systems better buy don't I think the election is better.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
Why is it important for everyday people, especially in neighborhoods
like ours, to pay attention to what happens in the courts.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
Oh, it's very important.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
Remember I told you we do a lot of public
utilities commission cases. It may only affect your own personal
bill nine bucks a month or five bucks a month,
but think about the whole state, or your community, even
your community. If it's a small electrical company, you know,
(20:57):
rural electrification or local electrification, that's a lot of money. Actually,
five bucks a month, sixty dollars a year doesn't sound
like a whole lot, but when you got tens of
thousands of people doing it, that's a lot of money.
And similarly, the power Sighting Board decides where people put
(21:18):
wind turbines, yes, and waters turbines and things like that.
It has a direct effect or even the death penalty.
I mean, whether a person lives or dies, big deal.
I think.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
So.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
I think you're saying to our listening audience that it's
important that they be aware and be involved.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
Got to be okay, got to be involved, because like
I can walk down the street in Columbus and unless
it's a member of the legislature, nobody knows who I am,
which in some ways is good, but in some ways
it's not good because that means people aren't paying attention.
And if they're not paying attention, they don't even know
(22:05):
what we're hearing. And it's on our website. You can
see all the cases and you just press on it,
click on it. These young people know how to do it,
and they can see the docket, they can see the pleadings,
they can see the briefs, and you can watch it
in Ohio. I think in the federal system now it's
audio you can listen, but for years there's nothing in
(22:30):
ours since five maybe it's all videoed and hear it.
And I told a bunch of lawyers one time, some
of them don't even know where to stand. I said,
that's like malpractice. All you got to do is go
on our website and you can see you can see
all of it. And if so, if you're interested in
the issue, let's say I don't know workers comp you
(22:53):
can pull up every one of those arguments and see
what questions were asked, what the issues were. And I
think that's important.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
People.
Speaker 1 (23:02):
Let's let's let's take a look at the human side
of justice. Okay, Can you share an example of a
case or a decision that reminded you of why the
work of the court matters so deeply.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
To real people. Yes, not to say that you're not real, No,
I'm real.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
I was telling somebody I had a brainwave test done
recently and the doctor want to see what my brainwaves
were doing. My wife just went to see if I
had a brain so both were confirmed as fine. So
but for real people, I remember a case. I will
always remember first death penalty case. And people don't realize
(23:44):
in the United States you need to know right from wrong.
That means you're sane before the day of your execution,
not just the day you commit the crime. Like down
South somewhere Alabama or somewhere they give you drugs to
make you say for the one day to execute you.
Now Ohio doesn't do that. That's not fair, not right.
(24:05):
But this case, this guy got a pistol and a shotgun.
He waited under the steps of the apartment building for
the ex girlfriend's party to be over. He knocked on
the door. I remember all this, and the new boyfriend
came to the door. He wounded him. He confessed all
(24:28):
this in the forensics. The science all backed it up.
So he shot him a little bit and threw him
on the floor in the living room. The young woman
knew what was going on. She tried to get out
the bedroom window. He pulled her back in, wounded her
through her on the floor. Then told the young man
to kneel down and pray to his God because he's
(24:48):
going to see him in a few seconds, and put
two bullets in his head. And then I got warned.
People on the radio is you're not going to like
what this sounds like, but so trigger warned or whatever
you want to call it. He then took the shotgun
and jammed it up her women's parts and pulled the
trigger and watched.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
Her bleed to death. Oh my goodness, I will never
forget that case.
Speaker 3 (25:08):
And my wife knew. I was so worried about it,
but she said, hey, she called me up, said hey,
he made a final statement. I couldn't hear it on
the radio. Look it up.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
So I did.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
And he wrote a letter his last day to the
parents of the two kids of the two young people
he killed, apologizing for what he did, say he was
sorry and he knew he was wrong, and that I
forget that case. I mean it was the facts are bad,
but it made me feel good because I don't know exactly.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
What it was.
Speaker 3 (25:41):
It was the weekend my daughter's graduation from law school,
and I went to her graduation, but I didn't go
to any of the parties or anything, because I went
through twenty seven years of records of that guy to
make sure that he knew right from wrong before they
executed him. And he did it because he wrote the
letter saying I knew I was wrong. I will never
(26:01):
forget that.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
Judge, how do you how do you balance compassion with
common sense when when you're having to make tough decisions?
Speaker 3 (26:28):
How do you go ahead? Uh, you don't do it?
The same for every case, because each case is different.
I mean, there's very few cases that are kind of
the same as the last one. But you you've got
to put into the mix the wording of the statute
(26:50):
or the constitution. You got to put in their prior
case law, you got to put in their common sense,
you got throw in some logic, and then after all that,
then you does it feel right? That's the compassion, like
I said about you know, father and nemon, you know,
(27:12):
do the right thing and if you can't do that,
then do the next right thing. And that's when that
comes in. I don't I don't know if weighing is
the right word. Maybe it is, but is it still right?
Because you could have a statue that's you know, ninety
nine percent of the time correct and whatever. You know,
(27:36):
all the facts are bad, but for some reason, some reason,
you need to go the other way. And you're a
human being, Yes you will, you will realize it in
your heart. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes you got
(27:56):
to overlook the common sense. What about personal biases, Well,
you always have personal biases, but you try to not
to use them or you know, let them do anything.
But you also it's the reason the highest court, court
to last resort, it's called in each state and in
the United States has more than one judge or more
(28:16):
than three. The US Spring Court has nine. We got seven.
It's so that those individual biases kind of get out
witted because there's enough people pointing to different things that
any individual bias. It's kind of like some of the
(28:40):
Olympic sports. I think it's skating ice skating, the top
vote and the bottom boat get knocked out and then
the average. And that's what kind of happens when you
have seven. The extremes on either end, they might write
a descent, but it's the majority in the middle that matter,
and so it kind of kind of prevents that from happening.
Speaker 2 (29:03):
What happens if you have kind of all extremest.
Speaker 3 (29:07):
Well, then it does happen rarely, but it does happen,
but then you don't get a decision, no decision. The
other day the US Supreme Court maybe was Cony Barrett.
Somebody couldn't vote. It was four to four, no decision.
Because you need to foth vote to overcome the prior decision.
(29:30):
You need a majority, and thus sometimes you'll see something
what we call a lead opinion maybe has three votes,
then a concurrence in judgment only that means they agree,
but for different reason than to the sense it's it
could be all over the place. But that then does
(29:51):
not become the law on that subject. And so it
gives the lawyer of the lawyers more to do. I
guess gives them more.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
That's okay, that's confusing to me. Okay, I thought we
were determining whether something, maybe it was constitutional or not. Well,
I think you said the individual right, Okay, all right.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
But then if you can't get in Ohio, if you
can't get four votes on the same thing, it's not law.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
It's not law. But how you know? Then then your
quality legislators.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
No, okay, you do nothing. Okay, nothing happens. The only
thing becomes law.
Speaker 1 (30:30):
Is but just But if if you have a majority opinion, yeah,
and it becomes law, that you're kind of quality legislators.
Speaker 3 (30:40):
No, no, because often you're enforcing what the legislature said. Okay,
I joke with my legislative friends, I say, keep keep
those ambiguous statutes, give us something to do. But no,
it's not we're I mean that's called substance of due process.
And the problem with it is you can go any way. Substance.
(31:03):
Due process brought your plus TV ferguson separate but equal,
but also brought your brown versus Board educations, which was
a good thing. So you don't want the courts to
overtake the legislature, but especially for black people, the courts
(31:26):
have had to because the legislature, like the US Senate
in the fifties and sixties, wouldn't do anything about civil rights,
so you had to go to the courts. But the
courts generally don't do that. You don't and you don't
want it because you know why, at least in the
(31:47):
legislative session, if they have a committee hearing, all the
groups that have few points get to testify, while in
our cases it's one side against the other, and they
may not want the majority opinion, so the majority viewpoints
so you and you don't get all the evidence that
you get in a congressional committee hearing, and so you
(32:09):
can't really give a true opinion. It they call the
executive branch and the legislative branch of the political branches
of government, and they call us the judicial branch, the
legal branch. And it's for a reason because we can't
we're not equipped to take in all those arguments because
we only have two parties and they may not be
(32:32):
either party wanting what's the majority of the people in
the country want.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
What? What's What's one thing you would love for people
to walk away because you've been on this program today.
Speaker 3 (32:47):
One thing that we listen and that's our job. Even
if you lose, you gotta you gotta have a court
that listens to you and that we generally do. And
if you know what else, you can watch us. We're
live streamed, So if you're not listening to w O
(33:11):
v U at nine o'clock on a Tuesday morning, not
every Tuesday, but when we're doing it, uh and Wednesday mornings,
you could watch us live. And I think people I
wish more people would do that because they're kind of scared.
I don't know if that's the right word. We're frightened.
They don't understand. But if the night before they would
(33:33):
read the briefs we'll say, merit brief, appellance, merit brief, appelles,
merit brief, and then watch the oral argument, they would
learn a lot about their government a.
Speaker 2 (33:44):
Lot mm hmm.
Speaker 1 (33:51):
We We we struggle sometimes with the uh, the appearance
of do process right, legislative and judicial. How does the
Ohio Supreme Court make sure that the law is applied
fairly across all counties, regardless of political and economic differences.
Speaker 3 (34:14):
One of the ways we do that is there's a law,
and we have rules that court rules that pick it up.
Say the first district, which is Cincinnati, says the law
is X, and and on the third district, which is
based in Lima, says the law is negative X. We
(34:37):
take those cases and that's one of the things we
do do and said, no, the law is X or
negative X for the whole state, because otherwise people in
line would be getting different results than people in Cincinnati.
And that's that's not right. You got to you gotta
be consistent. And so one of our jobs. And the
(34:58):
US Supreme Court does this too. They might take the
first district, which is Boston, and the sixth District, I
mean circuit, first circuit in Boston, sixth Circuit and Cincinnati,
and they'll say there's a difference in the circuits the reserve.
What's They'll resolve what's called a circuit split. We the
highest Preme Court resolve what's called a district split between
(35:20):
two districts. Who knows what. I don't know what it
would be. But you got to make sure that things
are standardized in the law because otherwise, what if you're
you know, let's say the first and third districts. You
have a company that sells that makes something in linement,
(35:42):
the chemical plant, but it's sold in Cincinnati, which you know,
which law would apply. You know, it's it's very complicated.
Speaker 1 (35:53):
Sometimes that brings us back around there, Okay, to a
general assembly making legal laws. Yes, they do to circumvent
natural law, they do, all right, would you speak to.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
That was sure to me.
Speaker 3 (36:10):
And let's make sure we're talking about the same natural
law as God given yes, okay, okay. Always tell people
look at this the Declaration of Independence, which is based
upon natural law, inalienable right to life, liberty, and pursuit
of happiness. By the way, Article one, Section one of
(36:31):
the state Constitution incorporates that into the Ohio Constitution. Most
states don't have that. But that's natural law, that's God
given statutory law, which is earth, which is what the
legislation does. They they write things like you can't go
(36:53):
more than sixty five miles per hour in the interstate
that has a county with more than five thousand people
or whatever it is, I forget. But that's the difference
is they're not God, and natural law comes from God.
And I think they call you a rabbi, I mean God.
(37:17):
It's something that's just in human nature. Like now they
may create. You have a right to what in Ohio
is called self defense. Somebody's going to shoot you, you're
a right to shoot them first. Well, God believes in life, right, Well,
(37:37):
who has a right to live? And so the legislature
has decided that you have a right to defend your
life so that you don't die. So they're kind of
fulfilling natural law, but they're they're because other states don't
have the same self defense laws that Ohio has. Or
(38:02):
I don't know. You got you give a son or
a daughter you want to teach or to give them
something as you grow old, right or so they can
inherit it. Each state has its own probate laws, and
that deals with money. But you are me. I want
to give my daughter knowledge, belief and right and wrong.
(38:27):
There's no way you can break that down. And so
that's the natural law versus Okay, the House goes to
the sun and the bank account goes to the daughter
or whatever.
Speaker 2 (38:41):
I mean.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
It's the difference between God given things and and that's
why they call it natural law because a lot some
people don't believe in God, but versus statutory law, because
statutes distinguish human being rights and obligations while God has
(39:08):
other ideas.
Speaker 1 (39:11):
All right, listen, we're gonna come back. You have been
listening to Judge Fisher of the Ohio Supreme Court along.
We're here with Rabbi on Black Thought, informed to inspire
and to impact on w OVU ninety five point nine FM.
Speaker 2 (39:27):
We will be right back.
Speaker 1 (39:28):
All right, people, you're back here with Black Thought. Everything
must change on w OVU. This is the Rabbi along
with Justice Patrick Fisher of the Ohio Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (39:40):
Betray you. You had a question, I think that you
wanted to ask.
Speaker 4 (39:44):
So you mentioned the executive in the legislature branches being quote,
the political branches and the judicial branch being that. Do
you think that there are any any one of those branches.
Theoretically they're all supposed to have equal power in your opinion,
do any of those branches have more power in practicing
(40:07):
any of them?
Speaker 3 (40:08):
They should have checks and balances to check each other. Now,
the legislative branch has what's called the power of the
purse because they control the money and taxes and things
like that. Then you got the executive branch, which is
more of the military and law enforcement. Right, it's called
(40:31):
the power of the gun. It used to be the
power of the sword, but it's the power of the gun.
And then they got us, and we have the power
of reason. And in a democracy, reason really matters. And
that's why I was in Vietnam last summer. That's a dictatorship,
(40:56):
communist dictatorship. Supreme court always rules the government wants them
to rule. But you don't see that here. Sometimes the
court's rule against the government or against some top person. Right,
and in Ohio, the former Speaker of the House, I
(41:19):
forget his name, householder. Maybe he's in jail. I mean,
you wouldn't find that in some of these other countries
that don't have that separate power, the power of reason.
So but you check and balance it. So if the
constitution state constitution doesn't permit. For example, they're trying to
(41:41):
amend the state constitution to limit property damage property taxes
for people over sixty or sixty five. I forget what
it is they want to limit it because people that age,
they may own property that's gone up in value, but
they don't have the cash to pay the taxes. But
let's say city councilor board education raises taxes on those people,
(42:04):
and yet that's past that. I don't know if it
will or won't. But you got the executive branch, you
got the legislate branch saying you can't do that. You
got the executive branch trying to take people's money, but
you got the court saying no, you would have them
in that situation and therefore they wouldn't be collected. It's
(42:25):
it's it's no power is greater than the others. It's
that they're different powers. And and that's what people need
to think about.
Speaker 1 (42:37):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (42:39):
And that's why you need those separation because any government
where all those powers are together, you have a dictatorship
of monarchy, whatever you want to call it. And it's
just that's not America.
Speaker 1 (42:54):
The community, judicial, activism, and interpretation. Could you define those
for us? And then where do you fall.
Speaker 3 (43:05):
I'm strict, I'm not strict interpretation, but I'm textualist textualist
reads the statute and enforces it as written.
Speaker 2 (43:19):
Now.
Speaker 3 (43:21):
Even among textualists are originalists who look at what the
language meant when the law was passed or when the
constitution was passed. I look at what the words mean today.
So it sometimes the words change meaning and sometimes they don't.
Speaker 2 (43:43):
The other what was the other?
Speaker 3 (43:44):
You had somebody else?
Speaker 2 (43:45):
Strict interpretation, strict interpretation and.
Speaker 3 (43:50):
Judicial activist judicial activists see to me, I don't believe
in judicial activism, whether it's conservative or liberal, for the
reason I earlier said, we can't take into account all
the factors. The legislature can to pass the law, and
(44:11):
the two parties in the lawsuit they may not care
or you know, they're not going to present all the
information we need to make those decisions. So whether it's
conservative activism or liberal activism, it's not good because if
we say, well, that law is unconstitutional, we don't rewrite
(44:34):
it for the legislature. We let them hold hearings and
take into account, and then they write it again themselves
and may or may not be constitutional again. So in
my view, it's better to let them do it than
have us do it, because we don't get all the
information they do.
Speaker 2 (44:56):
Can can.
Speaker 1 (44:59):
You may not be Can you speak to the issue
of of the fiasco I feel of the redistricting process
that taking place in.
Speaker 3 (45:09):
I can't just for the only reason that I read
on the way yes last night, that they're going to
start having redistricting meetings again this summer, so it'll come
to us and all right time October. I better not.
Speaker 2 (45:23):
I'd like to yes, all right, but I can't.
Speaker 3 (45:26):
I understand, Okay, I'd be unethical, Okay, all right.
Speaker 1 (45:29):
How does the public opinion or the media coverage impact,
if at all, how cases are viewed inside of the court?
Speaker 2 (45:38):
Zero zero.
Speaker 3 (45:40):
You can't let media public opinion make your decisions for you,
because sometimes the legislature has written the law that may
be constitutional and may be adverse to what public opinion is.
And if the public opinion wants to change, they need
(46:02):
to change the legislature. And even if I hate the law,
I've I've enforced some laws that I can't say which
because I'm not allowed to, but uh, which I would
never have voted for if I was in the legislature.
But if it's constitutional and the legislature has passed it,
(46:25):
I have to enforce it. Even if I don't like it,
and and and that happened a lot in the sixties.
There were some Southern members of the US Supreme Court
that did not want to enforce civil rights laws, but
they had no choice. They had to do it.
Speaker 2 (46:46):
But let's rewind just bit.
Speaker 1 (46:49):
So if if, if, if the trend is to change
the meaning of a word, okay, then that the meaning
of certain words the narrative now changes. Okay, Yeah, you
(47:12):
know I'm getting I'm getting a feeling that certain rights
that was intended in seventeen seventy six, okay, are not
really the wording is not necessarily the same as uttered today, correct,
all right, So how do we take and reconcile?
Speaker 3 (47:35):
That's what the court opinions. The court opinions then say, like,
for example, freedom of the press. There was no radio
or TV right in seventeen eighty eight or whatever constitutions passed.
(47:55):
But you take free press that was permitted for the
newspapers at the time and apply it to radio and TV.
Even though under the FCC Act Federal Communications Act, the
people don't control the airways. It's owned by the government.
Speaker 2 (48:18):
Okay, all right, But.
Speaker 3 (48:21):
If you if you changed it, then you would let
the government run radio and TV, and we don't do that.
CBS or ABC or whoever have their own editorials, and
it's or this place. You wouldn't want to tell people
here how to what they need to think.
Speaker 2 (48:42):
But I have.
Speaker 1 (48:42):
But I have my own podcast equipment in my car
and I can you know.
Speaker 3 (48:47):
And you can broadcast and if people agree with you, fine,
If they don't, that's fine too. It's just the same
as somebody writing a newspaper article, agree with it. Or
My grandfather used to say, read this editor oriol. He
got the Chicago Tribune. He lived outside Chicago, and whatever
editorial he gave me, I would he goes, what do
you think of that? And I'd take a position I
(49:09):
was eleven or twelve. He would always take the opposite.
But it taught me how to argue and think and
learn from the other side's viewpoint too. It was a
good thing for a young person who eventually became a
lawyer to understand.
Speaker 2 (49:27):
Okay, trade you any lasts.
Speaker 4 (49:32):
Was this all enlightening about the but the judicial process,
the three branches, how you can kind of learn from
each other. You take in one position, partner taking the
other position.
Speaker 3 (49:48):
Think, think about this let's say we say the statute's unconstitutional.
What happens the legislature often passes a new law, but
the governor has to sign it. Yes, and if we agree,
then that's the law. You got all three branches saying
that's the law, and that's the way it should be.
(50:11):
But because you don't want any one person or any
one branch controlling it all.
Speaker 1 (50:18):
Well, you know that that that's going to bring us
to another point that I'm gonna have to bring you
back to another show, because you know, you know, if
all three, all three branches agree yet it's wrong for
the people.
Speaker 3 (50:39):
Then the people can throw out the executive and the
legislative and in Ohio they can throw out the.
Speaker 2 (50:45):
Judicial visa v. Jim Crow, laws.
Speaker 3 (50:48):
Versus versus by elections. Yes, okay, And that's why elections
are so important people. You know, people complain to me
about things and I'll ask them did you vote, And
they'll say no. I'll say, well, if you voted, you
can complain to me. But if you don't vote, don't
complain to me.
Speaker 1 (51:06):
Well, we're gonna have to do this again. Okay, Judge,
that'd be great. It's been good having you here. Thank you.
For answering our questions. Thanks for having me all right.
You have been listening to black Thought. Everything must change.
On w O v U ninety five point nine FM.
I will drink from my part of the river, and
(51:26):
no one shall keep me from it until next time.
Speaker 2 (51:29):
Shalom Haabbah.
Speaker 1 (51:34):
This is w O v U Studios.
Popular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!