ILNews

Federal judicial nomination hearing draws crowd

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Senate Judiciary Committee considered U.S. District Judge David F. Hamilton's nomination for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals at a Wednesday afternoon hearing. A second hearing might be possible, and committee members likely won't vote on the Indianapolis judge's appointment to the appellate bench for at least another month.

The hearing for the Southern District of Indiana jurist was conducted about 2:30 p.m. at the U.S. Capitol building. It was moved from the usual building a couple blocks away because senators wanted to be closer to the Senate floor in order to vote on a series of federal budget bill items being debated at the same time, according to Erica Chabot, press secretary for committee chair Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt.

Normally, the hearing would have been broadcast live online, but the relocation meant going to a room without cameras.

The room, which was smaller than the usual location and had limited seating, was packed with people standing wall-to-wall, said Charles Bruess, the judge's recently retired courtroom deputy of almost a decade who traveled to Washington, D.C., for the hearing

"It was interesting to be there and see how the process works, but I didn't come away with a good feeling because it was all very confusing," he said. "The disappointing thing to me is that this last minute effort to postpone it doesn't take into consideration regular people who traveled a long way to be there or had planned to watch this online."

The hearing began on time and Leahy made his introductions, and then immediately the leading committee members were able to speak in order of seniority, Bruess said. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said lawmakers weren't given enough time to prepare for the hearing - echoing a concern he's voiced since the hearing was first scheduled a week ago. Specter praised Judge Hamilton's academic and judicial records and said he doesn't necessarily disagree with any of the judge's decisions, but he said more time was needed to review the record, which includes 1,150 written opinions - and 9,500 pages - from the judge's tenure on the bench.

Specter, who left the hearing after his 10-minute statement, urged Judge Hamilton to consider volunteering for a second hearing. Such a hearing would be rare, and it hasn't been determined if one might happen, according to Chabot. Leahy and the administration have said they're moving quickly in order to foster a bipartisan spirit and set a tone different from the past, when judicial nominations were delayed and took much longer.

President Barack Obama nominated Judge Hamilton for the post March 17, and this hearing was set about a week later. This is one step in the overall confirmation process, and the judge would still need confirmation by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate. If confirmed, he would replace Judge Kenneth Ripple who took senior status in September 2008.

Judge Hamilton began his opening remarks about 3:10 p.m. after an introduction from Indiana's senators, Republican Dick Lugar and Democrat Evan Bayh, the latter being the legislator who'd recommended the judge for the seat.

The full hearing lasted until about 4:15 p.m. and included consideration of two other nominees, one assistant attorney general nominee and a drug control policy director prospect. Senators asked all three questions simultaneously, making it difficult to distinguish exactly how long each testified for.

Those at the hearing said that in his first 15 minutes, Judge Hamilton answered questions about specific cases he's handled during his 14 years on the bench and talked about how he would recuse himself from cases, if necessary.

Judge Hamilton spoke about at least three cases, including his Henrichs v. Bosma decision in 2005 involving legislative prayer, his Doe v. Prosecutors case in 2008 involving search and seizures of sex offender computers and residences, and his past string of decisions involving Indiana's informed-consent for abortion laws.

A transcript of the hearing will be published once it's completed, Chabot said.

The most current coverage of the nomination process can be found at the Indiana Lawyer Web site, and an in-depth story on Judge Hamilton can be found in the April 1-14, 2009, issue of Indiana Lawyer.

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