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
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