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. 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