ILNews

Senate to vote on Judge Pratt Tuesday

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The U.S. Senate plans to vote on a Marion Superior judge’s nomination for the federal bench on Tuesday, according to a spokesman in Sen. Evan’s Bayh’s office.

LathropPratt

Senators agreed Thursday to consider the nomination of Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, whom the president chose in January for the Southern District of Indiana to succeed Judge David F. Hamilton. Judge Hamilton was elevated to the federal appeals bench late last year.

A roll-call vote is expected about 11:50 a.m. Tuesday, according to spokesman Brian Weiss in Bayh’s office in Washington, D.C. Whether senators will discuss her nomination or proceed directly to a vote hasn’t yet been determined.

If confirmed, Judge Pratt would be the first African-American judge on the state’s federal bench. She currently presides over the Marion Superior Probate Division, and has been in that role since serving a criminal division judge from 1997 through 2008, where she handled major felonies and presided over 20 to 35 jury trials a year. Judge Pratt was first elected in 1996, but had served as a master commissioner in Marion Superior Court since 1993 after practicing privately.

This would be the final of three confirmations for Indiana’s federal bench, all of which President Barack Obama announced in January. Earlier this week, the Senate confirmed Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson, a magistrate judge who joined the court in 2007 from Marion Superior Court. The president signed her commission this week. Senators in May confirmed banking attorney Jon DeGuilio for a seat on the federal bench in the Northern District of Indiana.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT