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. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT