ILNews

Committee queries federal nominees

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee had a chance to ask questions of Indiana's three judicial nominees Feb. 11, and it's now poised to decide whether the full Senate should have a chance to consider them for the federal bench.

Almost a month after the White House nominated them to fill vacancies in Indiana's two District Courts, nominees Jon DeGuilio for the Northern District of Indiana, and Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton Pratt and U.S. Magistrate Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson for the Southern District of Indiana faced questions from the committee in Washington, D.C.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who was the only member of the minority party to attend the hearing, directed a handful of questions at each person. Receiving the fewest and least-specific questions was DeGuilio, who is legal counsel for Peoples Bank and has served as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana and Lake County prosecutor. Generally, DeGuilio joined the other nominees in saying he was familiar with and would respect the federal criminal sentencing guidelines, as well as established precedent.

But the female jurists received specific questions from Sessions, who questioned their views and handling of criminal sentencing issues. Specifically, he referred to a time on the state court bench when Magistrate Magnus-Stinson asked to not be assigned to cases involving the death penalty. Magistrate Magnus-Stinson said she'd consulted the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission, which advised her then to not make any public statements about the issue and that advice still applies.

He also asked Judge Pratt about a case in which she allowed for a burglary convict's transfer from state prison to a low-security facility over the prosecutor's objections, as allowed by state statute. The convict escaped and was involved in a murder for which he was later convicted. Sessions asked the judge to explain her decision and how that experience impacted her. She said it was a learning experience that illustrated how important judicial decisions are on the community.

In addition to those questions, the three also explained their experience and how that has prepared them for a federal judgeship, and how they view the responsibility of being on the bench.

Senators have the weeklong Presidents Day break to submit additional statements for the record before the nominations are ready for their review and possible voting. Each nominee has submitted a public questionnaire, which can be viewed online at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Web site at http://judiciary.senate.gov.

No timeline exists for when the committee must vote, but that could happen as soon as the next scheduled executive business meeting Feb. 25. That is also when senators are expected to discuss the longdelayed nomination of Dawn Johnsen, who's been chosen to lead the Office of Legal Counsel but has faced delays from Republican senators since her initial nomination in early 2009. The committee didn't have enough members present at a Feb. 11 meeting to discuss her nomination.

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT