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

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT