ILNews

Senate confirms Tinder for 7th Circuit

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The U.S. Senate voted late Tuesday to confirm U.S. Judge John D. Tinder to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, meaning he's the first Hoosier jurist appointed to the federal appellate court in two decades.

Senators voted unanimously 93-0 in favor of Judge Tinder's appointment shortly after 11 p.m. Tuesday, after a day of voting on federal spending, alternative tax, and debate on various other issues. Seven senators didn't vote and he gained support from everyone else, including both Indiana senators - Democrat Evan Bayh and Republican Richard Lugar, who had recommended him for the spot.

Specifics on the vote and a breakdown by senator can be found online at the Senate's Web site.

No debate came from senators in the less than two minutes of time before moving to the vote, though Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Va., mentioned that this Democrat-controlled Senate has confirmed more judges than previous years under Republican leadership. Ranking judicial committee member Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., asked for unanimous consent on the confirmation.

Leahy asked his fellow senators shortly after 10 p.m. to vote on confirmation before finishing statements on the federal spending bill, but some senators objected to yielding their time and insisted on carrying on with comments about that before voting on both the federal budget bill and subsequently Judge Tinder's confirmation.

Judge Tinder, a lifelong Indianapolis resident who's been at the District Court since 1987, will now replace retiring Circuit Judge Daniel A. Manion, who came from South Bend after being appointed in 1986. An official date hasn't been established for when Judge Tinder's appointment begins, but Judge Manion has said he'd decide on the timing once the confirmation was complete.
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