David Hamilton, Another Radical Labeled Moderate

hamiltonLast April President Obama nominated Judge David Hamilton to the 7th Circuit.  Most Americans simply are not interested, however, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed once out, “[The] Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”  Today Harry Reid is pushing to seal his confirmation.  But should he be confirmed?

If you listen to the main stream media Hamilton is a “moderate.”  What could be better than a moderate?  Moderates should be people politically neutral, not too far left, not too far right.  My impression is that moderates sometimes swing left and sometime right.  But apparently in the new Obama world I would be wrong.  A new moderate is some who swings from extreme left to far left.

I know Media Matters, the left-wing apologists, have defended Hamilton and his “moderate” position, however, I’d just like to throw out a few quick points and back them up.  (Click the case name for a brief.)

  • 1994 in Grossbaum v. Indianapolis-Marion County Building Authority, Judge David Hamilton rules  that a Rabbi has no right to display a Menorah as part of an Indianapolis holiday display, even though the Menorah had been displayed at that location for 8 years.  The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Hamilton, responding that the Judge’s ruling “was motivated by an unconstitutional desire to retaliate against the plaintiffs for previous litigation and to discriminate against their religious viewpoint.”

  • 2002 in A Woman’s Choice-East Side Women’s Clinic vs. Newman, Judge Hamilton struck down as unconstitutional an Indiana law requiring pre-abortion counseling as part of informed  consent.  At the time of Hamilton’s decision, precedence had already been set in 1992, when an identical law in Pennsylvania was upheld as constitutional in the case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.  Even Justice Souter refused to allow the case into the Supreme Court, effectively upholding that decision.  When Newman was appealed, The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Hamilton’s decision saying, “[Hamilton] seriously mis-applied the Casey test.”  A good reading of the decision shows that Hamilton was concerned the Indiana law might actually reduce the number of abortions in that state by 10%.  If the 7th’s decision is correct Hamilton was proactively promoting abortion.  NO WONDER NARAL SUPPORTS HIM.

  • 2005 in Hinrichs v. Bosma, Judge Hamilton banned the Indiana House of Representatives from mentioning Jesus’s name during public prayer.  However when the Speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives asked if the same rule applied to prayers offered in the name of Allah, he found nothing to object to.  Responding simply, “The Arabic word ‘Allah’ is used for ‘God’.”  True yet its usage is exclusive to Islam and refers specifically to the Islamic representation of God.  Consistency would dictate banning any religion specific name for a deity.

  • 2007 in United States v. Rinehart, Judge Hamilton was forced to sentence a police officer who had pornographic images of underage girls (ages 16 & 17) in his possession.  We know Hamilton objected to the sentencing requirement because in his decision he wrote, “because of the mandatory minimum 15 year sentence required by 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e), this court could not impose a just sentence in this case. The only way that Rinehart’s punishment could be modified to become just is through an exercise of executive clemency by the President. The court hopes that will happen.”  It appears given his way, he would have let the child pornographer walk.

  • 2008, in United States v. Woolsey, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, “vacated the sentence, finding that the district court improperly sentenced the defendant to a term below the statutory mandatory minimum sentence.”  The “District court” directly refers to Judge Hamilton and his decision to ignore two prior felony drug conviction that would have mandated a life sentence and opting rather to impose a 300-month sentence.  I suppose he was demonstrating an inappropriate level of empathy.

Tell me, does this sound like a good judge to you?  In my opinion this judge demonstrates a hostility to religion and weakness on law and order.  I read the liberal response to Representative Session’s letter in both blogs and the main stream media, then I read the case briefs and rulings.  I cannot accept the arguments defending Hamilton.  His pro-abortion stance is troubling, but pales in comparison to the above mentioned examples.  Moderate?  Hardly.


UPDATE: 11.13.09

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply or add your opinion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: