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. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT