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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "Am I bugging you? I don't mean to bug ya." If what I wrote below is too much social philosophy for Indiana attorneys, just take ten this vacay to watch The Lego Movie with kiddies and sing along where appropriate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etzMjoH0rJw

  2. I've got some free speech to share here about who is at work via the cat's paw of the ACLU stamping out Christian observances.... 2 Thessalonians chap 2: "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe. For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last."

  3. Did someone not tell people who have access to the Chevy Volts that it has a gas engine and will run just like a normal car? The batteries give the Volt approximately a 40 mile range, but after that the gas engine will propel the vehicle either directly through the transmission like any other car, or gas engine recharges the batteries depending on the conditions.

  4. Catholic, Lutheran, even the Baptists nuzzling the wolf! http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-documents-reveal-obama-hhs-paid-baptist-children-family-services-182129786-four-months-housing-illegal-alien-children/ YET where is the Progressivist outcry? Silent. I wonder why?

  5. Thank you, Honorable Ladies, and thank you, TIL, for this interesting interview. The most interesting question was the last one, which drew the least response. Could it be that NFP stamps are a threat to the very foundation of our common law American legal tradition, a throwback to the continental system that facilitated differing standards of justice? A throwback to Star Chamber’s protection of the landed gentry? If TIL ever again interviews this same panel, I would recommend inviting one known for voicing socio-legal dissent for the masses, maybe Welch, maybe Ogden, maybe our own John Smith? As demographics shift and our social cohesion precipitously drops, a consistent judicial core will become more and more important so that Justice and Equal Protection and Due Process are yet guiding stars. If those stars fall from our collective social horizon (and can they be seen even now through the haze of NFP opinions?) then what glue other than more NFP decisions and TRO’s and executive orders -- all backed by more and more lethally armed praetorians – will prop up our government institutions? And if and when we do arrive at such an end … will any then dare call that tyranny? Or will the cost of such dissent be too high to justify?

ADVERTISEMENT