ILNews

Vote expected on Indiana federal magistrate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A U.S. Senate committee is expected to discuss and vote Thursday on an Indianapolis federal magistrate judge's nomination for a judgeship in the Southern District of Indiana.

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will conduct an executive business meeting at 10 a.m. to discuss several nominations, including that of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson for an Article III judgeship.

President Barack Obama nominated Magistrate Judge Magnus-Stinson in mid-January, along with Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton Pratt for a second vacancy in the Southern District and Munster attorney Jon DeGuilio for a Northern District of Indiana opening.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Judge Pratt and DeGuilio March 4. They've been listed on the Senate's calendar, but no time is scheduled for senators to discuss and vote on them.

Senators held off discussion and voting March 4 on Magistrate Magnus-Stinson's nomination because ranking Republican member Sen. Jeff Sessions from Alabama wanted to personally follow up with her before voting.

Stephen Miller, a spokesperson for Sessions, told Indiana Lawyer that the senator had received a response from Magistrate Judge Magnus-Stinson late the night before about questions following her Feb. 11 nomination hearing, and he wanted to meet with her again. The two met Monday, but Miller declined to elaborate on that meeting. However, the online response from Magistrate Judge Magnus-Stinson shows the senator had concerns about her handling of capital cases, the death penalty, and recusal issues she's faced in the past.

If approved by the committee and confirmed by the full senate, Magistrate Magnus-Stinson would take the seat vacated by U.S. Judge Larry McKinney, who took senior status in July 2009. She is listed first on the Senate Judiciary's meeting agenda, and the hearing will be broadcast live on the Senate's Web site.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT