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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  2. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT