ILNews

UPDATE: Senate passes cloture motion

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

UPDATE 5:05 p.m. Tues., Nov. 17, 2009

The full U.S. Senate has ended debate on the controversial nomination of U.S. Judge David F. Hamilton, and now senators will vote as soon as Wednesday morning on his confirmation to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

A cloture vote came about 5 p.m., with the Senate voting 70-29 to crush the judicial filibuster threat on President Barack Obama's first judicial pick. Debate started about 3:15 p.m. and lasted a little more than an hour before the voting began, with senators on both sides speaking for and against Judge Hamilton and why they should consider his nomination. Ten Republicans crossed the partisan aisle and went against their own party leaders by voting to limit debate, including Indiana's Republican Sen. Richard Lugar who had defended Judge Hamilton in a floor speech on Monday.

Now, up to 30 hours can be used to discuss Judge Hamilton's nomination before a final up-or-down vote, Senate aides say. With three-fifths of the Senate voting to limit debate, it seems likely that the simple majority needed to confirm Judge Hamilton's nomination will be possible. The Senate returns at 9:30 a.m. and could take up the nomination vote first thing, or anytime after it convenes a period of morning business.


Original IL Daily story follows:

Indiana is at the heart of a legislative discussion about the future of the federal judiciary, and debate about a judge's controversial nomination is coming to a head this week.

The full U.S. Senate is expected to vote today on a debate-limiting measure called cloture, which if passed would push forward the nomination of U.S. Judge David F. Hamilton, chief judge of the Southern District of Indiana who is being considered for elevation to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. President Barack Obama nominated the judge in March as his first judicial pick for the federal judiciary. If confirmed, Judge Hamilton, who's been on the District bench since 1994, would replace Circuit Judge Kenneth Ripple who took senior status in September 2008.

After five months of delays from the Senate's Republican minority in moving the nomination forward, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., last week filed a motion to invoke cloture and bring Judge Hamilton's nomination to an up-or-down vote. He needs 60 votes to achieve that, and if passed the Senate would be limited up to 30 hours of debate before a final confirmation vote. Senate aides expect the cloture to pass and for a vote to happen Wednesday because Judge Hamilton has some bipartisan support - Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., defended the Hoosier jurist in a floor speech Monday afternoon.

Sen. Jeffrey Sessions, R-Ala., the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opposed the cloture motion and voiced concerns about Judge Hamilton's record and work history, citing past rulings as well as his month of fundraising work for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) after graduating from college in 1979 and a year of sitting on the governing board of what is now the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana in the mid-80s when he practiced at Barnes & Thornburg. Sessions said 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.

A cloture vote is expected later today once senators complete action on a military construction and veterans' aide bill. That vote hadn't happened by 2:15 p.m., but an hour of debate is expected prior to the cloture vote ­- with debate equally divided between Sessions and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Pat Leahy, D-Vt. Check for updates at Indiana Lawyer's Web site, www.theindianalawyer.com, as well as expanded coverage in the Nov. 25-Dec.8, 2009, print edition of Indiana Lawyer.

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT