ILNews

Indiana federal court vacancies could remain for years

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s two U.S. senators come from different parties, hold different political philosophies and have different ties to the current administration. But in order to fill the upcoming vacancies on the federal bench, the pair will be under pressure to work together and jointly recommend nominees to the president.

Having the support of both senators from a candidate’s home state has typically sent a strong message to the other members of the upper chamber on Capitol Hill. Still, this is an election year and judicial confirmations in the past have incited bitter partisan fights. Even if Sens. Dan Coats, a Republican, and Joe Donnelly, a Democrat, do agree on nominees, the seats may remain empty for some time.

The search for nominees started when two long-serving Hoosiers announced their intentions to step down: Judge John Tinder of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana.

Tinder has notified the federal court administration of his plans to retire in February 2015. Barker plans to take senior status June 30. She intends to continue handling a full caseload until her successor is nominated, at which time she will reduce her work to 80 percent.

Barker has acknowledged with the current ranker in the U.S. Senate that is making confirmations difficult, she could be working full time on the District Court for the a very long time.
 

Charles Geyh Geyh

At Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Professor Charles Geyh found reason to believe the Indiana judicial slots could stay vacant for at least two years.

With two years remaining in President Barack Obama’s term and no Republican currently standing out as a frontrunner to win the White House in 2016, Geyh said politics will likely continue to dominate the confirmation process. Increasingly over the past 20 to 30 years, the approval of new judges has become politicized.

He predicted a 50-50 chance that Barker’s seat will be filled by the end of the current administration. Geyh speculated chances are even less for filling Tinder’s judicial post before the president’s term expires.

The wildcard is that Indiana nominees will be considered after the Senate majority employed the so-called nuclear option. In November 2013, Democrats eliminated filibusters by changing the Senate rules so that judicial nominees will only need a simple majority of 51 votes, as opposed to a super majority of 60 votes, to be confirmed.

“It’s not clear to me what the effect of the filibuster change will be on the process and whether it means you could push someone through over the objections of the minority party,” Geyh said.

Qualifications of nominees

One possible outcome of the filibuster change could be more liberal nominees.


scott-ryan.jpg Scott

Ryan Scott, associate professor at IU Maurer School of Law, said Obama might become more aggressive in pushing judicial candidates from the left. The president is under pressure from progressives, Scott said, to nominate liberal judges and practitioners who they believe will reliably vote for liberal positions from the bench.

However, even getting 51 votes is difficult. Scott noted centrist Democrats may balk at supporting liberal nominees and since the balance of power in the Senate may shift after the 2014 election, less controversial nominees may remain the attractive choice.

In separate statements, Coats and Donnelly indicated experience will matter more than political leanings when selecting a nominee for the U.S. District Court position.

“I will be looking for someone who has proven herself or himself as an outstanding member of Indiana’s legal community,” Donnelly said. “Further, the candidate must be someone with the right judicial temperament – one who treats all parties before the court with respect and someone who will decide cases in a fair and impartial manner.”

Potential nominees will be vetted by the White House, the Senate and the American Bar Association.

Historically, individuals with judicial experience and a reputation for moderation tend to have the most success at being confirmed, especially for the openings on the Circuit courts. The confirmation for District courts tends to be less contentious so nominees can be not only judges but also practitioners and law school professors.

Barker was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana when she was nominated for the federal bench.

The process of selecting a new judge can force nominees to put their careers on hold for years. Geyh described the nomination-to-confirmation period as intense, uncertain and one in which the opposition will try to dig up all kinds of dirt.

“The pool is limited to people who are willing to put up with the awful business of the nomination process,” he said.

Coats indicated a willingness to be a part of the nomination process, noting he takes seriously his responsibility to provide advice and consent to the president on judicial nominees. He echoed Donnelly on the qualifications the individual must have to gain his approval.

“Qualified candidates must have a profound respect for the law, unquestionable character and a reputation built on fairness and integrity,” Coats said.

Senate battles

The approval of Indiana’s Judge David Hamilton for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals underscores how nasty the confirmation process can be. Although he had the support of then Indiana Sens. Evan Bayh and Richard Lugar, conservatives protested Hamilton’s nomination because of rulings he made as a judge for the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana.


lugar Lugar

The Senate Republicans started to filibuster but Democrats were able to muster the votes to end the debate, opening the door for Hamilton to be confirmed.

Changing the filibuster rule was promoted as a way to speed up the confirmation process and work toward filling the current 86 vacancies in the federal judiciary. However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s former colleague, Lugar, does not think the rule should have been changed.

“I understand his impatience, his exasperation and I understand the delay (caused by) all of those vacancies,” Lugar said of the Nevada senator. But the move damaged relationships and made Republicans angry. “It is a blow.”

During his tenure in the Senate, Lugar did not oppose any judicial candidate. He said he gave deference to the nominating senators, believing they had done their due diligence and selected a qualified individual.

The congenial atmosphere has since evaporated in the Senate. Republicans and Democrats have opposed judicial nominees and have used the filibuster to block confirmation votes.

Scott called Reid’s decision to change the filibuster rule a “positive development” and a “step in the right direction.” He believes the rule revision will enable federal bench vacancies to be filled since the minority will have less ability to obstruct the nominees.

Lugar, as well, noted the number of empty seats in the federal judiciary and described the current situation as “severe.” While the cases continue to pile up, the shortage on the bench means fewer cases will be adjudicated and justice will be denied, he said.•

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. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

  2. Both sites mentioned in the article appear to be nonfunctional to date (March 28, 2017). http://indianalegalanswers.org/ returns a message stating the "server is taking too long to respond" and http://www.abafreelegalasnswers.org/ "can't find the server". Although this does not surprise me, it is disheartening to know that access to the judicial branch of government remains out of reach for too many citizens (for procedural rather than meritorious reasons) of Indiana. Any updates regarding this story?

  3. We have a direct genuine provider for BG/SBLC specifically for lease, at leasing price of 4+2 of face value, Issuance by HSBC London/Hong Kong or any other AA rated Bank in Europe, Middle East or USA. Contact : Mr. Johnson Hatton Email:johnsonhatton@gmail.com Skype ID: johnson.hatton007 Intermediaries/Consultants/Brokers are welcome to bring their clients and are 100% protected. In complete confidence, we will work together for the benefits of all parties involved. All inquires to Mr. Johnson Hatton should include the following minimum information so I can quickly address your needs: Complete contact information: What exactly do you need? How long do you need it for? Are you a principal borrower or a broker? Contact me for more details. Johnson Hatton

  4. I've been denied I appeal court date took a year my court date was Nov 9,2016 and have not received a answer yet

  5. Warsaw indiana dcs lying on our case. We already proved that in our first and most recent court appearance i need people to contact me who have evidence of dcs malpractice please email or facebook nathaniel hollett thank you

ADVERTISEMENT