ILNews

U.S. Senate confirms Hamilton for 7th Circuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

U.S. District Judge David F. Hamilton is the newest jurist on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

After a half hour of final debate starting at 2 p.m., the U.S. Senate voted within an hour to confirm Judge Hamilton, who was President Barack Obama's first judicial pick.

He has served the Southern District of Indiana bench for 15 years and currently serves as chief judge. He succeeds Circuit Judge Kenneth Ripple, who took senior status in September 2008.

"We're so very happy for our colleague that this long process has finally ended," said Judge Sarah Evans Barker in Indianapolis, "and of course, that it's culminated in his appointment. We have always had complete confidence in his abilities, and that's never waived. We'll miss his collegiality on our court here, but we'll look forward to working with him at the Court of Appeals level."

Today's final vote of 59-39 capped an eight-month nomination process that had been prevented from reaching the floor for debate since June when Judge Hamilton survived the Senate Judiciary Committee by a partisan vote. On Tuesday, 70 percent of the Senate crushed a judicial filibuster threat by some conservative senators, allowing the controversial nomination to finally proceed to an up-or-down vote.

Sen. Jeffrey Sessions, R-Ala., the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opposed Judge Hamilton's nomination because of concerns about his record and work history, which they labeled as "liberal" and evidence of a "judicial activist." Sessions pushed debate because the judge was the president's first pick and sets the stage for how both parties can proceed on future judicial nominations.

But several senators - including Indiana's senators, Republican Richard Lugar and Democrat Evan Bayh - defended Judge Hamilton and called those accusations unfounded, saying the judge is well qualified for the appellate bench.

Speaking on Judge Hamilton's behalf from the Senate floor earlier this week, Bayh called the nomination delays that had stopped the judge from getting a vote since summer a "sad state of our judicial nominating process."

"I know first hand (Judge Hamilton) is a highly capable lawyer who understands the limited role of the federal judiciary," he said.

A formal swearing in will likely occur in early 2010, and the judge will be able to begin his appellate duties immediately after the president signs his commission document. But as has happened in the past with other judges, the chief Circuit judge will likely re-designate him to the District Court in a limited capacity in order to tie up his caseload and assist until a successor is nominated and confirmed. Bayh's office has not publicly released any candidates' names and the White House does not have a timeline for when any judicial nomination might be announced.

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT