Judge reflects on new position on 1-year anniversary of confirmation

November 24, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

This post is by reporter Michael Hoskins.

A year ago, U.S. Judge David F. Hamilton got the green light from the Senate to move up to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals from the Southern District of Indiana. His confirmation came Nov. 19, 2009, and he began his appellate duties on Nov. 22.

The dates didn’t stand out on his calendar recently, but the judge gladly took some time to talk with Indiana Lawyer about his positive experiences in the new job so far.

“At this point, I feel like I’m settling into the job pretty well,” he said, noting that he hasn’t counted the arguments he’s heard or the opinions written so far. “I’m just focusing on the work that needs to be done. I do miss the trials and closer interaction with juries and lawyers and witnesses, but I do enjoy the challenges.”

Traveling to the Chicago-based appeals court a couple times a month, Judge Hamilton said he usually gets there for two-day sittings at a time but also for non-argument duties. He’s also enjoyed becoming a part of the law school campus in Bloomington, spending as much as three-quarters of his time there. Though he’s had some interaction with students – participating in one class session so far and planning on more this next spring semester – the judge said he mostly is able to attend the lectures and events at the law school because of his judicial duties.

Coincidentally, that lecture-attending ability also gave him the chance most recently – on the day marking his confirmation vote in 2009 – to attend an event focusing on his sister-in-law Dawn Johnsen, who is an Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor who’d been going through the Senate confirmation process for a top Department of Justice spot at the same time. But while the judge survived that process, Johnsen withdrew her name from consideration earlier this year because of partisan delays and debate.

On Friday, she gave a lecture at the law school that marked the first time she publicly talked about that whole process. Judge Hamilton attended the event to hear her speak, since he now has one of his offices located at the Bloomington law school where Johnsen teaches. The judge declined to comment on Johnsen's nomination process and said he’d prefer to keep his focus on his own judicial work. You can read a new Indiana Lawyer story on that in our latest edition that’s posted online about her experience.

Of course, those two going through the same confirmation process at the same time certainly makes you ponder what it’d be like to be a fly on the wall at the upcoming holiday gatherings, or even those from last year just after the judge’s confirmation while her’s was still pending. That may be details we’ll never know.
 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT