ILNews

Vote set on federal magistrate's nomination

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The U.S. Senate plans to vote Monday on an Indianapolis federal magistrate’s nomination for a constitutionally created judgeship in the Southern District of Indiana.

An executive calendar for June 7 shows that senators will turn to nomination discussion at 4:30 p.m. on three individuals, including U.S. Magistrate Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson. A vote on the three nominations is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. The other two listed are Audrey Fleissig for the Eastern District of Missouri and Lucy Koh for the Northern District of California.

President Barack Obama in January nominated Magistrate Magnus-Stinson to fill a seat left open last summer by the retirement of U.S. Judge Larry McKinney. Her nomination came at the same time as the president chose Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton Pratt for a Southern District vacancy and Jon DeGuilio for the Northern District of Indiana. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nominations in March, and both Magistrate Magnus-Stinson and Judge Pratt await a final confirmation vote. Senators unanimously confirmed DeGuilio on May 11.

Spokesman Brian Weiss in Sen. Evan Bayh’s office in Washington, D.C., said today that there was no indication when senators might turn to the nomination of Judge Pratt, who would fill an opening left by Judge David F. Hamilton when he moved to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
 

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT