Surprising controversy?

April 20, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The U.S. Senate is back from break and ready to get down to business. On the Senate executive calendar for today is the nomination of Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor Dawn Johnsen. She’s been on the calendar in the past and nothing’s happened, so who knows if the Senate will actually get around to discussing her nomination today.

Johnsen, along with another nominee with an Indiana connection, federal judge David Hamilton, are causing quite a stir in Washington. There are some people and groups that adamantly oppose Johnsen becoming Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel or Judge Hamilton joining the 7th Circuit.

What are the chances that two nominees from Indiana would be so controversial? When I think of Indiana, I immediately think conservative, so I’m surprised that these nominees are being cited for their more “liberal” leanings or rulings.

I can understand why some groups may oppose Johnsen as a nominee – she has been very outspoken about former President George W. Bush’s policies and worked at NARAL Pro-Choice America and the American Civil Liberties Union before joining the Clinton administration. To some people, those are controversial organizations that work in areas others strongly oppose.

But when it comes to Judge Hamilton coming under fire for his rulings, I just don’t get it. As a judge, he has to decide based on the law. His controversial rulings just upheld the law. While you may not agree with his decisions, that doesn’t make him a bad judge or unfit for the bench.

At this time, we still don’t know if Johnsen or Judge Hamilton will be confirmed, but we’re keeping a close eye on it. What do you think about the controversy surrounding these two? Justified or unwarranted?
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
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT