ILNews

Senate votes on federal magistrate's nomination

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By now, Indiana may have its newest federal judge in the Southern District of Indiana.

The U.S. Senate was scheduled to vote on the confirmation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson at 5:30 p.m. June 7, which came after the deadline for this story. Confirmation approval meant that a woman who’s been on the federal bench for more than three years as a magistrate would be promoted to a constitutionally created Article III judgeship.

This news came almost five months after President Barack Obama nominated her for the federal post, following last summer’s change when U.S. Judge Larry McKinney took senior status. She had notified Indiana’s Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh about her interest in the spot last November, and her nomination in January came at the same time the president chose Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton Pratt for a Southern District vacancy and Jon DeGuilio for a judgeship in the Northern District of Indiana.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved all three nominations in March. Following the recent legislative action, only Judge Pratt awaits a potential date for a confirmation vote. Senators unanimously confirmed DeGuilio May 11 to fill the seat occupied by U.S. Judge Allen Sharp until his death last summer.
Spokesman Brian Weiss in Bayh’s office in Washington, D.C., said at IL deadline that there was no indication when senators might turn to the nomination of Judge Pratt, who would fill an opening left by Judge David F. Hamilton when he was elevated to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

With a possible green light for Magistrate Magnus-Stinson, the Southern District would have to fill the magistrate spot left open by her elevation. She left the Marion Superior bench in early 2007 following the retirement of U.S. Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields, and a new vacancy would mean a merit-selection committee would be named to choose a new magistrate.

Prior to the senators’ final vote on Magistrate Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge Richard Young said that if she received confirmation he hoped the process to find a new magistrate would begin quickly and that a successor could be chosen by the fall.

The most current coverage on this nomination process and confirmation vote can be found online at the Indiana Lawyer website, www.theindianalawyer.com.•
 

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT