Behind the hearing

February 12, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The major snowstorm that pummeled Washington, D.C., this week isn’t the only thing creating a chill in the air. Comments from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., toward the American Bar Association’s process for evaluating federal judicial nominees could be described as frosty.

At the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on six nominees for the federal bench – including three from Indiana – Reid said the ABA shouldn’t penalize a nominee for not having prior experience on the bench. He said the comments with the nominee from his own state in mind, Gloria Navarro, but the comments also apply to Indiana nominee Jon DeGuilio, who has never served on the bench.

“I think the ABA should get a new life and look at whether people are qualified, not whether they have judicial experience,” Reid said.

The ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rated Navarro as qualified, but a minority of the committee rated her as not qualified. Reid said that was out of concern because she had never been a judge. He went on to say the judiciary is “out of touch” and criticized the judges’ robes and “fancy chambers.”

The ABA committee rated DeGuilio as qualified; the substantial majority found Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton to be well qualified with a minority finding her to be qualified. The ABA committee rated U.S. Magistrate Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson qualified as well.

The ABA started evaluating federal judicial nominees in 1948, and began evaluating them for presidents starting with President Dwight. D. Eisenhower in 1953. While it may evaluate the judges, the committee doesn’t recommend or endorse any particular candidate.

Indiana’s Democratic Senator Evan Bayh spoke later in the hearing, giving a statement that included encouraging senators to adopt the “Hoosier approach” of working across party lines to select consensus nominees. After his statement, Bayh took a moment to say the judicial confirmation process is “too often consumed by ideological differences and partisan acrimony, and that it's not how the Framers wanted us to exercise our authority.”

I would say Bayh’s comment should extend past the judiciary and on to nominees for other posts, say the Office of Legal Counsel for the Department of Justice.
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
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT