Nov 18, 2009 by Bruce
David Hamilton – one of those “unforeseen consequences."
The adage “elections have consequences” can include the unfortunate result that some of those consequences can be totally unforeseen by the electorate focused on election slogans like “hope and change.”
Today, unfortunately, we will probably witness one of those consequences. The 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, to which Hamilton will be appointed upon his expected confirmation by the Senate, had this to say about Judge Hamilton’s 7 year personal vendetta to block Indiana’s “informed consent” law from taking effect:
“For seven years Indiana has been prevented from enforcing a statute materially identical to a law held valid by the Supreme Court in Casey, by this court in Karlin, and by the fifth circuit in Barnes. No court anywhere in the country (other than one district judge in Indiana) (Me – that’s Hamilton they’re talking about) has held any similar law invalid in the years since Casey.”
Hamilton was originally appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton in 1994. At the time, the ABA rated Hamilton as “not qualified.” The Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed him anyway.
While there are plenty of other reasons why Hamilton should never have been nominated this time around, his refusal to follow clear Supreme Court and 7th Circuit precedent on “informed consent” laws that reduce abortions is a sad indicator of what type of judge we’re getting, and a reminder to voters to pay attention to what type of “change” they are voting for.
I don’t know enough about Hamilton to have much of an opinion, but there is one piece of misleading information in your blog.
The ABA rated him not-qualified based on “his limited number of years practicing at the bar and his lack of trial experience.” (he hadn’t been active for 12 years which they like – instead 9 years).
Now they rate him at their highest rating – so if that was important then for people making decisions, it is important now.
You make a fair point on the reasons for the ABA’s initial rating. However, if the Dem-controlled ‘94 Senate had said “no” back then because of his inexperience (wishful thinking on my part), we wouldn’t be dealing with a problematic appointee now. As for the ABA’s high recommendation now, I would suggest that the ABA’s evaluation criteria concerning “competence” really missed the mark this time around – probably because the liberal ABA loved Hamilton’s abortion decision and legislative prayer decision. That, plus all the items Sen. Sessions noted in his “Dear colleague” letter, make for a very worrisome judicial appointment.