ILNews

Southern District judiciary comes together at ‘historic’ event to thank Lugar, Bayh

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Judges and judicial officers from the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Indiana came together recently to honor Sen. Richard Lugar and former Sen. Evan Bayh for their service to the federal judiciary.

The pair was recognized during a special luncheon Oct. 18 in the William E. Steckler Ceremonial Courtroom at the Birch Bayh Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse. Chief Judge Richard Young called the event historic because, for the first time, all the current Article III judges from the Southern District, as well as the bankruptcy and magistrate judges and 7th Circuit Judge John Daniel Tinder were present with the two senators.

“We wanted to bring them to the courthouse to thank them for their support of the Southern District and the judiciary over the years,” Young said.

Lugar, a Republican, has served in the U.S. Senate since 1976 and will leave the Senate at the end this term. Bayh, a Democrat, retired in 2011 after two terms.

The judiciary thanked the senators for their effort to work together to nominate Article III judges in the Southern District. During the years between 1999 and 2011 when their terms overlapped, Lugar and Bayh always consulted with each other on the judicial nominations, even though they were not obligated to do so, before submitting any names to the president for consideration.

SenatorLunch-15col.jpg Judges and judicial officers from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana held a special luncheon Oct. 18 to honor Sen. Richard Lugar and former Sen. Evan Bayh. Pictured are: (front row, left to right) Sen. Evan Bayh, Chief Judge Richard L. Young, Sen. Dick Lugar, Judge Tanya M. Walton Pratt; (second row, left to right) Senior Judge Larry J. McKinney, Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson, Judge Sarah Evans Barker, Judge William T. Lawrence, 7th Circuit Judge John Daniel Tinder; (third row, left to right): Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore, Magistrate Judge Craig M. McKee, Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker, Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch, Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue; and (back row, left to right): Bankruptcy Judge Anthony J. Metz III, Bankruptcy Judge Frank J. Otte, Chief Bankruptcy Judge James K. Coachys (Photo submitted)

They had a “pretty special relationship together when it came to nominating federal judges,” Young said.

These two men reached across party lines to uphold their responsibility and ensure the citizens had a full court, Young said. Their actions also helped make the confirmation process smoother since the collaboration of two senators from opposite sides of the aisle sent a message to other U.S. senators.

Consequently, vacancies on the federal benches in Indiana were filled quickly, which enabled the court to function without judges having to crowd their schedules with the cases spilling over from the vacant court and without Hoosiers having to wait longer for their cases to be heard.  

At the luncheon, Lugar and Bayh were each presented with a copy of the book, “Federal Justice in Indiana: The History of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,” by George Geib and Don Kite. Then the two senators made informal remarks.

The luncheon was “very special and one that will be hard to forget,” Young 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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT