Subscribe
Jobs
Cars
Real Estate
Apts
Classifieds
Shop
Congress’ approval of a Hoosier judge to the federal appeals court is a welcome, if belated, triumph of good government over partisan sniping.
Sen. Richard Lugar, rightly and courageously, bucked his party leadership and stood up for U.S. District Judge David Hamilton. The Republican senator, known for his intelligence and willingness to support what is right – rather than blindly support his party – dissected arguments against Hamilton in an 18-minute speech before the Senate on Monday.
Perhaps partly because of the respect Lugar holds among the Senate, nine other GOP senators joined him in a 70-29 vote Tuesday to end the filibuster and open the door – finally – to his confirmation on Thursday.
The effort to block the nomination of Hamilton to the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago had little to do with qualifications and ability. Instead, the filibuster was because of the opponents’ partisanship, conservative ideology and hopes of slowing President Obama’s efforts to fill desperately needed federal judgeships. It is no coincidence that Hamilton was Obama’s first nominee to the court of appeals.
As with any other judge who has issued hundreds of rulings, opponents will be able to find language from Hamilton they claim supports a bias.
But make no mistake, the ultraconservative wing of the party focused on Hamilton because of two rulings on their hot-button issues and because they want to hurt Obama wherever they can.
In one ruling, Hamilton prohibited Indiana from enforcing one part of an abortion-consent law that required patients to twice receive information in person about abortions, causing unnecessary travel. In the other, Hamilton upheld a lawsuit challenging the form of prayer in the Indiana House.
Rather than permit mischaracterizations and outright falsehoods about the rulings, Lugar placed them in the proper context. Opponents criticized Hamilton for blocking the abortion law for seven years, but Lugar pointed out that much of the delay was because of Indiana government lawyers’ tactics. And Hamilton did not forbid prayer in the legislature; he upheld complaints that some prayers in the House were not simply to God but to advance one form of religion over others.
Opponents gleefully note that in both cases, Hamilton was overturned by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals based in Chicago – the court on which Obama has nominated Hamilton to serve. What opponents do not point out is that both rulings were less-than-unanimous 2-1 decisions. All four of the judges who overruled him were conservative appointees of President Reagan.
In the prayer case, the ruling was overturned not on its merits but on a technicality.
In the abortion ruling, Hamilton was overturned in a ruling written by Judge Frank Easterbrook, widely known for conservative decisions. In her dissent, Judge Diane Wood wrote: “The district court’s findings should stand. I find nothing in the majority’s speculation that comes close to refuting the evidence upon which the court relied.”
With the power of the presidency comes the ability to nominate a number of federal officials and judges.
Senators should reject such nominees only when they are clearly unqualified or have shown a penchant to overstep their bounds to advance partisanship.
Indeed, Republicans strongly criticized Democrats for blocking or slowing judicial nominations under President George W. Bush – even though Democrats delayed Bush nomination’s far less often than Republicans are now.
Of Obama’s 26 judicial nominations, only five have been confirmed. Hamilton is a well qualified, moderate judge, and his confirmation was long overdue. With luck, senators will now allow Obama to replenish the vacant judicial seats.
