ILNews

UPDATE: Hamilton vote set for Thursday

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2009
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The full U.S. Senate will hold a roll call vote at 2:30 p.m. Thursday on an Indianapolis judge's controversial nomination, deciding whether U.S. Judge David F. Hamilton will move up to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Eight months after President Barack Obama chose him, and five months after getting through the Senate Judiciary Committee on a partisan vote, Judge Hamilton will learn whether he'll be elevated to the appellate bench from the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, where he currently serves as chief judge and has been a judge for 15 years.

About 70 percent of the Senate voted Tuesday afternoon to crush a judicial filibuster threat from some conservative Republican senators, meaning a final vote could proceed on President Barack Obama's first judicial pick. The 5 p.m. vote was 70-29, with 10 Republicans and two Independents crossing the partisan aisle to cut off debate. A procedural 30 hours of debate time followed, but on Wednesday less than an hour was devoted to discussing the judge's nomination overall as the day and evening's business went on.

Earlier in the week, both of Indiana's senators - Republican Richard Lugar and Democrat Evan Bayh - spoke in favor of Judge Hamilton and highlighted their thoughts that he's well qualified for the appellate bench.

But on Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. and a Senate Judiciary Committee member, was the most dramatic in his opposition, at times pointing his finger in the air and shouting "activist" or "ignored" in referencing what he thought of the judge's rulings and his adherence to precedent. The senator repeatedly accused Judge Hamilton of breaching his judicial oath and disrespecting the rule of law by using his own personal bias and prejudices to "do what he wants" instead of following the U.S. Constitution.

"He embraces a liberal activist philosophy, and has implemented that philosophy in his decisions," Coburn said. "That's the problem with activist judges. They see no limits; they take a personal bias and use that bias to make their own decisions rather than looking at the Constitution."

Sen. Jeffrey Sessions, R-Ala., the ranking party member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opposed the cloture motion and voiced concerns about Judge Hamilton's record and work history, saying it's important to continue debate on Judge Hamilton because he was the president's first pick and will set the stage for how both parties can proceed on future judicial nominations.

Speaking Wednesday evening from the Senate floor, Sessions reiterated those points and added that no debate had been offered by Democrats on Judge Hamilton's nomination and that his colleagues hadn't been given enough time to debate the judge's merits. Sessions said he expects that more than the 29 cloture-opposing senators would vote against Judge Hamilton once the final vote takes place.

The Senate returns Thursday morning, and at 2 p.m. will have only 30 minutes of debate on Judge Hamilton's nomination before proceeding to the final vote.
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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT