ILNews

Indy magistrate gets Senate panel's approval

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis federal magistrate joins two of her colleagues in getting a U.S. Senate committee's approval to become an Article III judge for Indiana.

Earlier today, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the nomination of Magistrate Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson for a judicial opening in the Southern District of Indiana. Committee members voted today after postponing discussion and vote on March 4, when members unanimously approved two other Hoosier nominees: Jon DeGuilio for the Northern District of Indiana and Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton Pratt for the Southern District of Indiana.

Ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., wanted to personally follow up with Magistrate Judge Magnus-Stinson before voting because he'd received a response from her the night before about questions following her Feb. 11 nomination hearing. His press office declined to elaborate on details of the meeting March 8, but the magistrate's online response showed the senator had concerns about her handling of capital cases, the death penalty, and recusal issues she's faced in the past.

If confirmed, Magistrate Judge Magnus-Stinson, who's been on at the federal court since 2007, would succeed U.S. Judge Larry McKinney, who took senior status in July 2009; Judge Pratt would succeed Judge David F. Hamilton, who was elevated last year to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals; and DeGuilio would fill a vacancy left by Judge Allen Sharp, who died in July 2009 after almost two years of senior status.

With this approval, the three nominees - chosen by President Barack Obama in mid-January - now must get approval from the full U.S. Senate, though no timetable exists for when that might happen. It's up to Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to determine when they are brought up for discussion and a vote. The same process is in place for the nomination of Indiana University Maurer School of Law - Bloomington professor Dawn Johnsen, who received a party-line vote March 4 from the Senate committee. She was first nominated early last year and went through the confirmation process, but didn't get a vote in the full Senate and was ultimately re-nominated this year.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT