ILNews

UPDATE: Hamilton vote set for Thursday

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2009
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The full U.S. Senate will hold a roll call vote at 2:30 p.m. Thursday on an Indianapolis judge's controversial nomination, deciding whether U.S. Judge David F. Hamilton will move up to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Eight months after President Barack Obama chose him, and five months after getting through the Senate Judiciary Committee on a partisan vote, Judge Hamilton will learn whether he'll be elevated to the appellate bench from the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, where he currently serves as chief judge and has been a judge for 15 years.

About 70 percent of the Senate voted Tuesday afternoon to crush a judicial filibuster threat from some conservative Republican senators, meaning a final vote could proceed on President Barack Obama's first judicial pick. The 5 p.m. vote was 70-29, with 10 Republicans and two Independents crossing the partisan aisle to cut off debate. A procedural 30 hours of debate time followed, but on Wednesday less than an hour was devoted to discussing the judge's nomination overall as the day and evening's business went on.

Earlier in the week, both of Indiana's senators - Republican Richard Lugar and Democrat Evan Bayh - spoke in favor of Judge Hamilton and highlighted their thoughts that he's well qualified for the appellate bench.

But on Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. and a Senate Judiciary Committee member, was the most dramatic in his opposition, at times pointing his finger in the air and shouting "activist" or "ignored" in referencing what he thought of the judge's rulings and his adherence to precedent. The senator repeatedly accused Judge Hamilton of breaching his judicial oath and disrespecting the rule of law by using his own personal bias and prejudices to "do what he wants" instead of following the U.S. Constitution.

"He embraces a liberal activist philosophy, and has implemented that philosophy in his decisions," Coburn said. "That's the problem with activist judges. They see no limits; they take a personal bias and use that bias to make their own decisions rather than looking at the Constitution."

Sen. Jeffrey Sessions, R-Ala., the ranking party member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opposed the cloture motion and voiced concerns about Judge Hamilton's record and work history, saying it's important to continue debate on Judge Hamilton because he was the president's first pick and will set the stage for how both parties can proceed on future judicial nominations.

Speaking Wednesday evening from the Senate floor, Sessions reiterated those points and added that no debate had been offered by Democrats on Judge Hamilton's nomination and that his colleagues hadn't been given enough time to debate the judge's merits. Sessions said he expects that more than the 29 cloture-opposing senators would vote against Judge Hamilton once the final vote takes place.

The Senate returns Thursday morning, and at 2 p.m. will have only 30 minutes of debate on Judge Hamilton's nomination before proceeding to the final vote.
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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT