In an article headlined "Moderate Is Said to Be Pick for Court," the New York Times reports that President Obama's first nominee to a federal appellate court seat is expected to be David F. Hamilton. Hamilton, appointed by President Clinton to a district judgeship in Indiana in 1994 (despite the ABA's "not qualified" rating), is expected to be named to the Seventh Circuit.
It's far from clear what justifies the article's characterization of Hamilton as a "moderate" (or, as the article oddly puts it, as "represent[ing] some of his state's traditionally moderate strain"--how does one represent some of a strain?). Was it perhaps Hamilton's service as vice president for litigation, and as a board member, of the Indiana branch of the ACLU? Or maybe Hamilton's extraordinary seven-year-long series of rulings obstructing Indiana's implementation of its law providing for informed consent on abortion?
Hamilton was a fundraiser for ACORN (nice ACORN payback, Mr. President) and served as vice president for litigation and a board member of the Indiana ACLU.
Governing from the center?
41 republicans? They may need every one on judges
3 comments:
Rs w/ back-bone to stop the nominees-as did the Ds w/ R Presidents--my bet is the Rs will fold...
C-CS
I have a feeling another botched nomination is on the way.
Zero has SO many people willing to work with him it is very hard to choose from. Think about: the Illinois baseball team and the Chicago football team; this must be tough.
Realize that for the NYT this man is a moderate. It's hard to get left of them.
Post a Comment