• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Striking Back for a Client - in 140 Characters or Less | Main | Noted D.C. Attorney, Richard Nixon's Personal Lawyer "Jack" Miller Dead at 85 »

November 19, 2009


Alex Mulroney

Congrats commenter! You figured out how to cut and paste from the American Spectator Blog (!

Next step: learn to think for yourself!

He's a sensible jurist, now well qualified from his service on the bench, though he was young (36) when Clinton appointed him in 1994--that's the only conceivable reason for his "not qualified" rating. He volunteered for ACORN for a month right after college when nobody had ever heard of the group, long before it had become associated with helping pimps and prostitutes (which was probably an aberration from its usual work, but all it takes is one egregious error and an angry mob).

But you're obviously not interested in debate, or in giving this guy a chance. If you were, you could see that he's a reasonable, if left-leaning, jurist. Not really anybody to get all fired up about. But if you enjoy being pissed off without even understanding what you're pissed off about, go right ahead.

And I'd love to see a citation for your claim that he ruled it's OK to pray to Allah but not to Jesus--I'm sure that wasn't distorted, misrepresented or taken out of context at all.


Citation needed.

Also, this "President Obama's so-called "empathy standard" - which says a judge should look beyond the law and the Constitution to favor certain parties over others" sounds interesting -- please provide an actual quotation from PrezBama that describes the standard you seek to attribute to him in those terms.

It is bittersweet for all of us to realize, however, that nobody even got to make these arguments in the Senate, aside perhaps from some guy alone in a room on CSPAN-2. The party and ideology that spent the past 8 years running this nation into the ground is so thoroughly discredited in the court of public opinion that they didn't even get the chance. It's not a price I'm happy to have paid, but at least it has an upside.

Perhaps in another 8 years your party may again get a president who will nominate judges willing to stand up to the rich and powerful child molester lobby, the domineering women who hold the overwhelming majority of positions of power in our society, and the three-time professional burglars who rob innocents of amounts that may total one ten-thousandth the amount stolen by the board of directors of Goldman Sachs.


When President Clinton nominated David Hamilton to the district court, he was rated "not qualified" by the American Bar Association. His experience leading the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and fund raiser for ACORN was not enough to qualify him for the lower court and nothing in his record on that court suggests he is qualified for a promotion.

· Judge Hamilton is an ideologue first and a jurist second. His rulings reflect his work for the ACLU and ACORN, and his rulings on the District Court often reflect his bias toward extreme leftist ideology. If anything, Judge Hamilton's record has confirmed fears that he would be a liberal judicial activist who would impose his radical ACLU-inspired agenda from the bench.

· Judge Hamilton suppressed religious freedom: He expressed a bizarre hostility to religious speech by ruling that prayers to Jesus Christ offered at the beginning of legislative sessions violate the Constitution, but that prayers to Allah do not. In 1994 he denied a Rabbi's plea to allow a Menorah to be part of the Indianapolis Municipal Building's holiday display. In both cases the Seventh Circuit reversed Hamilton.

· Judge Hamilton's ruling in criminal cases indicates that he attempts to find ways to be as lenient as possible in sentencing. In one case, where he was unanimously reversed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Hamilton disregarded a defendant's prior conviction for a felony drug offense in order to avoid imposing a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for persons convicted of a third felony drug offense.

· Judge Hamilton protected child predators: In one particularly troubling case, Judge Hamilton invalidated a common-sense law that would have required convicted sex offenders to provide information so that law enforcement could track their activity, thereby making it easier for child predators to move around and endanger children in Indiana. In another, Judge Hamilton urged the President to grant clemency for a police officer who had pled guilty to producing child pornography by videotaping and photographing sexual activity with two teenage girls.

· Judge Hamilton consistently sided with abortion-on-demand absolutists: Over a period of seven years, Judge Hamilton used his judicial role to wage a campaign against reasonable measures to reduce abortions, repeatedly ruling against a popular Indiana law requiring information and a waiting period before an abortion.

Judge Hamilton was asked recently if he would adopt President Obama's so-called "empathy standard" - which says a judge should look beyond the law and the Constitution to favor certain parties over others. Judge Hamilton said he agreed and that empathy "is important in fulfilling that [judicial] oath." Given his record of legislating from the bench, we are not surprised that Judge Hamilton would reject impartiality in favor of that lawless standard.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad