ILNews

Next up for Judge Hamilton: full Senate vote

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After surviving a Senate committee's party-line vote today, an Indianapolis-based federal judge must now get approval from the full U.S. Senate in order to move to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Senate Judiciary Committee this morning voted 12-7 along party lines to favorably report U.S. District Chief Judge David F. Hamilton's nomination, which would move him from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana.

He is the first judicial pick made by President Barack Obama and is largely viewed as a test for how lawmakers will handle future nominees, particularly anyone considered for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States. The significance of that was clear after today's executive business meeting, where senators spent about 30 minutes debating Judge Hamilton's nomination and broader judicial nominee issues before finally voting.

Republican senators voiced their fundamental disagreement with how the president views judicial nominees and particularly with his push for more "empathy" on the federal bench, while Democrats defended those views and referred back to past presidents' nominations and their overall views of the process. Some of the discussion related specifically to Judge Hamilton, some did not.

"Empathy doesn't decide cases; the law decides cases," Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said. "There's always some authority, statute, or rule of construction that lawyers use. Every lawyer worth his salt has a statute or rule of construction to support his (or her) case. There's always a legal reason to rule, and you don't default to what's in your heart."

When committee chairman Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., tried to direct those and other statements to Judge Hamilton, Kyl responded: "I am not trying to filibuster Judge Hamilton. But we have to have this discussion. ... We haven't had a Circuit (judge) vote ... and I sense this will be something that comes up again and again," he said.

Other senators, including ranking Republican committee member Jeff Sessions from Alabama, noted that Judge Hamilton doesn't seem committed to following the law and seems more willing to allow his personal views to impact his rulings. They pointed to several of his decisions that have been reversed by the 7th Circuit, including one where he denied injunction to a Jewish rabbi who'd wanted to put up a menorah in the lobby of the City-County Building in Indianapolis.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., defended both Judge Hamilton and the president's nomination statements.

"Every judge is going to have cases we disagree with, but you have to look at entirety of their judicial record," she said, pointing out that Judge Hamilton has the support of Indiana Republican Sen. Richard Lugar and that the head of the Indiana chapter of the conservative Federalist Society has called his judicial philosophy well within the mainstream.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., accused Republicans of being hypocritical, turning empathy into the "Darth Vader of any judicial appointment," and orchestrating an effort to oppose anyone with compassion or a sense of mercy.

Responding, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said, "I want a compassionate judge, but the dividing line is whether that empathy rules over what's clearly written. We see a level (of empathy) that denies certain functions of the law, or ignores them. We want compassion, but we want it applied evenly with the rule of law. That's where the rub is with Judge Hamilton."

Several senators weren't present at the hearing, but those attending voted by proxy in their names. With the committee reporting this nomination favorable, the full Senate will now get the nomination. There's no set timeline for a confirmation vote, but the Senate majority leader will be responsible for determining when that might happen.

If confirmed, Judge Hamilton would succeed Circuit Judge Kenneth Ripple who took senior status in September.

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT