ILNews

News spreads about Tinder's confirmation

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
News came late Tuesday night that U.S. District Judge John D. Tinder has been promoted to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

His first order of business today: resuming a criminal jury trial that's been under way this week in his Southern District of Indiana courtroom in Indianapolis. That priority made him unavailable early today to talk about the confirmation, but his courthouse colleagues made sure everyone knew the significance of the news.

"True to form, Judge Tinder was on the bench handling a jury trial the morning after he was confirmed," Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker said, noting what a noteworthy gift this is for the legal community. "He's a dedicated, hard-working judge, and his confirmation is a credit to his dedication and determination."

While most didn't see the televised confirmation vote, District Court Clerk Laura Briggs said she watched the vote at home with her husband and jumped up and down when hearing news of the unanimous vote shortly after 11 p.m.

After hours of debate about federal spending and other legislative issues throughout the day, the Senate moved to Judge Tinder's confirmation and voted 93-0 in his favor. Republican Sen. Richard Lugar had picked him for the spot, President George W. Bush nominated him in July, and the Senate has been working since to confirm him. Following last night's action, the confirmation vote was sent to the president for signing, which was expected today.

News spread quickly this morning in the Southern District's halls and court chambers, and everyone was absolutely ecstatic, Briggs said.

"I stayed up to watch the vote ... and couldn't sit still once Judge Tinder's name was on the screen," she said, noting that she watched the televised vote with her husband on C-Span2. "When the vote concluded unanimously, I'll admit that I literally danced with happiness for the judge.

"There's a certain pride associated with working for a man as honorable, intelligent, and fair as Judge Tinder," she added. "To see him recognized by this elevation, supported by senators from both political parties, is a credit to him and the court as a whole. It's a proud day for the Southern District."

Fellow U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker said she was pleased with how Judge Tinder's entire confirmation process wasn't arduous, as expected earlier this year. She knows how tough the waiting has been.

"I like to say he's off the Tinder-hook; though that sounds pre-planned and it's not," she said this morning. "This is analogous to a baby being born long overdue. When it finally happens, you're so ready for them to be born, but the wait makes it even more of a joyous occasion."

Judge Tinder is the first Hoosier jurist appointed to the federal appellate court in two decades. He will replace Circuit Judge Daniel A. Manion, who came from South Bend after being appointed in 1986 and is now taking senior status, according to his court staff in South Bend.

Uncertain this morning is when Judge Tinder's appointment will begin, but colleagues suspect he will be unofficially sworn in and then re-designated to the District Court until a new judge can be nominated and confirmed.

Judge Tinder will maintain office hours in the Southern District and travel back and forth to Chicago, according to Judge Barker.

"We're confident that he'll be as fine an appellate judge as he has been a trial judge," Judge Barker said about her colleague. "Everyone's confident that the things he's learned as a trial judge here about people and their important legal matters will influence the kind of judge he'll be."

A lifelong Indianapolis resident and Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington graduate, Judge Tinder has been at the District Court since 1987.

See the Dec. 26 issue of Indiana Lawyer for more comprehensive coverage on Judge Tinder's confirmation.
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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT