ILNews

Senators treat judge kindly at second hearing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even though Republicans insisted on a rare second judicial nomination hearing for U.S. District Judge David F. Hamilton, it remained unclear Wednesday what need there was for the Indianapolis judge to appear again before the Senate Judiciary Committee in his bid for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

He attended his second nomination hearing in the afternoon, a proceeding that was scheduled after Republican senators had complained in early April that they needed more time to review Judge Hamilton's extensive record on the bench and that he should appear a second time. This hearing was scheduled following a two-week spring break and follows the first hearing April 1, which Republicans effectively boycotted.

Only one Republican lawmaker attended the hearing this week, and that senator lobbed two relatively mild questions to the judge, illustrating that partisan politics may have been more at the heart of the delay than anything else.

Lawmakers were apologetic to the judge for the month's delay in the process but kept a sense of humor about it during the hearing.

"This is his second appearance .... He enjoyed himself so much last time, he decided he would come back," said Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., who chaired the meeting in place of Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. "I regret that you have to come back."

Because no Republicans attended the first hearing or submitted written questions, this second hearing was necessary, Cardin said. But Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, the ranking minority member, was the only Republican to attend to ask questions. The two senators who'd previously requested more time - Arlen Specter who was a Republican but recently switched to the Democratic Party, and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. - did not attend.

President Barack Obama nominated Judge Hamilton for the post March 17, and the first hearing was set about a week later. If he gets approval from committee members, the judge would still need confirmation by the full Senate. If confirmed, he would replace Judge Kenneth Ripple who took senior status in September 2008.

Overall, Judge Hamilton answered five questions from both Democrat and Republican lawmakers at the second hearing. Some were directed at all the nominees.

Coburn asked the judge about his view on using international law or foreign court rulings as guidance, as well as a 2003 comment the judge made about judges writing footnotes to the Constitution.

Judge Hamilton said courts might look to foreign scholars or judges for guidance but that they are bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the U.S. Constitution. The judge noted that his footnotes remark came during a 2003 speech for the late U.S. Judge S. Hugh Dillon, pertaining to a judge's job of writing footnotes to the Constitution. Judge Hamilton said that's how his late colleague described the judiciary's work and it was a tribute to his memory.

"The concept of footnotes is not something new but shows that what we're doing is to work out details about how those principals apply to new situations," he said.

Coburn thanked Hamilton for attending and added that his uncle, former Congressman Lee Hamilton, was one of his heroes.

Sen. Edward Kaufman, D-Del., asked what differences the judicial nominees see between the District and Circuit levels. Judge Hamilton said he'd miss the trial work and seeing jurors and lawyers on a daily basis, but he'd welcome the chance to handle appellate work.

"I'd look forward to the possibility of engaging in legal issues that are left less to discretion of a particular District judge but apply more to the broader rule of law," the judge said.

Responding to a question from Cardin about work that he dubbed "unpopular," Judge Hamilton pointed to work he'd done in private practice at Barnes & Thornburg about two decades ago, particularly when the U.S. was dealing with the first wave of the AIDS epidemic. He'd led an appeal overturning a parental-rights termination ruling by a state court that stripped away the rights of a father who'd tested HIV positive, and the judge also noted his work on the case of Ryan White, who was told he couldn't attend school after contracting HIV through a blood transfusion. The judge also mentioned some of his rulings that might have been classified as unpopular, but he didn't elaborate on any.

"As a judge, I try not to go out of my way to be unpopular; that's not way we decide cases," he said. "Sometimes the right result is popular; sometimes it's unpopular. You just go with the right result."

Judge Hamilton joined two other nominees at this latest hearing: Thomas E. Perez for assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and U.S. Judge Andre Davis in the District of Maryland for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia.

After the hearing, the record remains open for a week for additional questions and comments, and the nominees are encouraged to answer promptly. Coburn said he'd submit 20 questions written on behalf of Republican colleagues for each nominee to answer, but he didn't elaborate on those questions or why those couldn't have been submitted prior to this hearing for Judge Hamilton to consider.

No date has been set for the committee to vote on Judge Hamilton's nomination.

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 appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT