President picks moderate as first judicial nominee

Source: Boston.com (Boston Globe)

Announcing his first federal appeals court pick, President Obama today reached for a moderate who already has the bipartisan support of both of his home state's senators.

If confirmed, federal Chief District Judge David Hamilton of Indiana will get a seat on the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

Hamilton, a former counsel to then-Governor Evan Bayh, has served for 14 years as a federal judge in Indiana and has been chief judge for the southern district in January 2008.

"Judge Hamilton has a long and impressive record of service and a history of handing down fair and judicious decisions. He will be a thoughtful and distinguished addition to the 7th circuit and I am extremely pleased to put him forward to serve the people of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin," Obama said in a statement.

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/03/president_picks.html

This is totally expected move from him.

and a lot of other issues.

Many on the Right and Left have been brainwashed to believe otherwise.

Remember we have to keep track of what people's positions are and what it means to say 'left' or 'right' in this country. The greatest impact of the Bush years (excluding the 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan mess) is that the GOP was very good changing America's perceptions of what is "left" and "right" by moving the "center" pole around.

Personally, health care and climate change (global warming) are moderate, centrist issues. Most of the first world has some kind of universal health care, most Americans want affordable, uncomplicated, health insurance and they don't care if that goes to a private institution or a public one. And, with the exception of extreme right members who think the Earth is mankind's toy given to us by God, Americans are very concerned about pollution and climate change.

These aren't lefty issues, but issues the Bush years has convinced us as "left" I'll even go so far as to say gay marriage isn't really a left issue, more of a left-ish issue mostly because people right of center are homophobes, or are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality and if being against gay marriage makes them have to see it left then they'll do what they can to be comfortable. But, and I've tried this, if pressed on the issue that all are created equal, and that all people share the same rights, and that all people should have a free and fair shake in the world... people on the right will side with us on gay marriage if framed that way.

There are very few really "left" issues. Just as there are very few "right" issues. IMO, most issues are "middle" or "center" or "moderate" issues.

Examples: Most people around this board, would agree that there is a certain amount of personal responsibility involved with one's finances (translation: the sub-prime lending mess) Most people around here believe in the strength and power of the American armed forces and that they have an important place, internationally, and are, for the most part, honorable people making extreme sacrifices selflessly for their country. Those are just two issues the claimed (by the GOP, MSM and other popular places) to be on the "right" Yet many on DU believe in these things deeply. How then can the "lefties" of DU be for so many "right" issues? They can't because those issues, and more, are "centrist" or central to our culture.

I've been hooked on Obama ever since the 2004 DNC when he said "There is no Red America, There is no Blue America, there is only the United States of America." That sealed the deal for me.

Besides, I'd rather have a moderate judge than a extreme left or right leaning judge. How could one expect a fair trial if the judge is some right wing wacko, or a far leftie that thinks all people should be vegans?

"Socialist," I mean truly Socialist, with government owning all means of production, not the term the RW throws around incorrectly.

But thanks for saying that, in case others might be confused. The vegan bit was to show a often misunderstood and misapplied label that people on the left have to deal with. Plus, many vegans I know, but not all, are very intense about their choice and I have often clashed with them because I am not vegan and finding common ground on food choice is often difficult. However, many bad judges do allow their personal outlook on life to color their judgment on the bench. So that's what the vegan bit in my post was meant to underscore. A poor example, I realize that in hindsight.

suggests he's center right and a good friend of the Wall St. crooks and criminals.

On other issues, he's been really good for the most part, but here he disappoints greatly.

It is Senate tradition that Presidents consults with Senators for the States that the judges are nominated. In particular this is true for district court. Bush did not respect these traditions is nice to see that Obama does. I am sure this judge is pro-choice etc and supports some of the issues we care about.

He was a counsel for Evan Bayh.

He's the pretty boy son of a former Indiana Senator, not too bright either.

but he supports the partial birth ban (I think)

Seems his court ruled in 2005 that Indian's legislature couldn't exclusively use Christian prayer to open legislative sessions.

Here's a Christian wing-nut response:

""The evidence shows that the official prayers offered to open sessions of the Indiana House of Representatives repeatedly and consistently advance the beliefs that define the Christian religion," Hamilton wrote. "The sectarian content of the substantial majority of official prayers in the Indiana House therefore takes the prayers outside the safe harbor the (U.S.) Supreme Court recognized for inclusive, non-sectarian legislative prayer."

Bosma, an Indianapolis Republican, called the ruling "intolerable."

"This is a terrible decision, and I'm honestly shocked," he said. "It goes much further than any other court really in the nation has in dictating the content of free speech, especially here in the House where free speech is held in such high regard.""

The article goes on to demand Judge Hamilton's Impeachment. Of course it never happened.

I think I like this judge, very much. I hope he gets confirmed.

And this guy is Pro-Business.

"Judge gives reprieve to Hoosier Energy"
http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2008/12/ind_decisions_m_306.html

Customers get to pay for Hoosier Energy bad bets.

I don't know whether he's pro-business or not, but if he is, that's bad for the 7th Circuit.

:dem:

-Laelth

really like to know why everyone describes him as a moderate rather than as a liberal, though.

If he votes against gay marriage, that will be the last straw for me. I will go Green, and I don't mean St. Patrick's Day or the environment.

is pro-business interests over public interests.

Case in which he voted for Energy company interests:
http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2008/12/ind_decisions_m_306.html

Case in which he voted for business interests over the environmental interests
http://www.wndu.com/indiana/headlines/12354736.html

and there are articles in which he dismissed a case against a drug company because that drug company got FDA approval thus is not liable for damages

:evilfrown:

a good explanation. Solid info, no snarking and no condescension. (I am so tempted to cheat on my current love, Google.)

And I wouldn't go with what just one judge does regarding any issue. There is more than one Court of Appeals and the 7th Circuit doesn't necessarily impact on the rest of the country. IMO

Keep in mind that it takes time for change to happen. Some things take longer than other. Smoking in society has changed and will soon be almost non-existent. Religion is slowly losing its power. That will take longer but will be a key in approval for gay marriages. Especially when more and more are not religious. Gays and Lesbians have a higher profile than they use to have 20 years ago. That higher profile IMO has helped gain acceptance especially in higher density areas.

happens, albeit slowly. It was one of the things I was counting on Obama to do, even if he took more conservative positions himself.

Roe v. Wade was decided in the 1970's despite religion. Yes, they've been off the wall about it ever since, but so what? What has really helped? Gay marriage. Massachusetts approved it a few years ago and it's been a non-issue since time lapsed for the legislature to override the SJC. People don't really raise any issue about gays anymore, except for one textbook that even I thought might be age inappropriate for kindergarten.

I think if you have the option to marry whomever you truly desire today, you are fine with thinking it's okay for that change to take a long time. People in California are, as we type, fighting to keep their marriages legal against Starr's efforts to get them nullifed. And while slow change is coming, people die, inside and outside.

In other words, justice delayed is often justice denied. And, btw, gays have already been treated second class citizens for a very long time. Millenia, in fact. The reason that they are not as closeted now as they once were is that they began to act up after Stonewall and AIDS, not because people became more accepting as time passed. The more society, with its laws, endorses the idea that gays are subhuman or anathema or abomination, the longer it will take to see them treated as anything else.

Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody runs through the reasons why some conservative Christians likely aren't going to be pleased by President Obama's decision to nominate federal district Judge David Hamilton to fill a vacancy on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

While The New York Times this morning called Hamilton a "moderate," Brody writes that:


http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/03/64265257/1

Who cares what religious beliefs the guy has if his pro-corporatist rulings puts you out of your house and has you living in a cardboard box.

That's a bigger concern for me than whether they were pro-business.

People for the American Way like this nominee, BTW.

Their emphasis is not on business but social and moral issues.

Who gives a rats ass about social and moral issues if the judge is giving away the store to pro-corporate interests? Having the right to marry/religion/family planning, etc. means diddly squat if you don't have the bucks to pay for the services and your financial well-being has been destroyed by some pro-corporate ruling.

And no, I haven't looked up this guy's decisions so I'm withholding judgment.

But ruling in favor of, say, Monsanto and against a consumer group isn't by itself a bad thing, nor is the opposite necessarily a good thing, much as I like to see consumers win and corporations lose. I'd need to see the facts and the reasoning.

And I would say we can walk and chew gum at the same time and care about social/moral issues AND financial/corporate issues; they sometimes do overlap anyway.

I linked articles about his pro-corporatist rulings and you asked if they were justified. That is a request for a legal opinion and I will let your signature speak for me:

"This post isn't intended as legal adviceopinion. If you take legal adviceopinion from some yahoo you meet on the Internet, who doesn't even claim to be a lawyer, you get what you deserve."

state, something with Obama and his bush-heavy faith based initiatives do not.

is he related to Lee.?

Then we get all het up when the makeup of the courts is rabidly conservative. :eyes: