A group of prominent conservatives, including former Attorney
General Ed Meese, has issued a statement opposing President
Obama’s nomination of David Hamilton to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 7th Circuit. The statement and signatories follow:
David Hamilton: Unqualified, Except for in Liberal
Activism
Obama’s First Judicial Nominee Reflects Preference of
Ideology over Constitutionality
President Obama’s nomination of David Hamilton to the US Court
of Appeals for the 7th Circuit represents a choice based on the
merits of political ideology instead of competence and
impartiality. Hamilton, Obama’s first judicial nominee, has
none of the judicial expertise or experience required, but all
of the ties to left-wing special interest groups and a record
of activist rulings reflecting his personal views that only a
liberal ideologue could hope for.
President Obama admitted on the campaign trail that he would
select judges based not on their impartiality or understanding
of the Constitution but on whether they “have life experience
and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it
means to have the system not work for them,” and whether they
have “the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or
African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.” He also
promised, however, to usher in a new era of post-partisanship.
Unfortunately that promise expired with his very first judicial
pick, as he nominated Hamilton not on the basis of his
commitment to the judicial oath but on the basis of expressed
(and demonstrated) commitment to an extreme political agenda.
As a judge, Hamilton has shown himself to be soft on crime,
radically pro-abortion, and hostile towards religion. With such
a liberal activist record unmarked by significant experience,
Judge Hamilton is clearly a bad and politically motivated
appellate nominee.
Judge Hamilton is committed to an extreme political
agenda.
·
Hamilton is a former ACLU leader who lent his
legal skills to the far-left special interest group.
·
He was a fundraiser for the liberal activist
group ACORN, the sponsor of the most comprehensive criminal
voter fraud campaign in American history.
Judge Hamilton’s experience as a political activist
does not qualify him for a judicial office.
·
In 1994, when President Clinton nominated him to
the district court, the ABA rated Hamilton as ‘not qualified,’
apparently because of his almost purely political (as
opposed to legal and judicial) experience. There is nothing in
his record as a judge that suggests he’s any more qualified
now.
Judge Hamilton has a record of going out of his way to
let criminals go free.
·
He made it easier for child predators to move
around in Indiana by invalidating a common-sense sex offender
law designed to protect children from those same predators.
·
He has a record of helping criminal defendants by
suppressing evidence and warrants that would help law
enforcement keep streets and families safe. He once suppressed
a warrant that had been issued after a child had revealed to a
social worker that her mother had illegal drugs in their
house.
·
He took the extreme measure of ruling that a drug
sniffing dog is comparable to using a thermal imaging device to
look into houses.
Judge Hamilton is a typical abortion-on-demand
absolutist.
·
For years he used his judicial office to fight a
popular Indiana law designed to reduce the number of abortions.
That reasonable, common-sense law required information and a
waiting period before an abortion and Judge Hamilton
invalidated it despite Supreme Court precedent supporting
it.
Judge Hamilton is hostile to the free exercise of
religion.
·
He ruled that prayers to Jesus Christ offered at
the beginning of legislative sessions in the Indiana state
House of Representatives violated the Constitution, but that
prayers to Allah did not.
Given Hamilton’s lack of qualifications and clear record of
liberal ideology, the Senate should reject his nomination.
President Obama’s choice of Hamilton flies in the face of the
desire of the vast majority of Americans for credentialed and
impartial judges, and the Senate should vote accordingly.
The statement was issued by:
Edwin Meese, former Attorney General
David McIntosh, former U.S. Representative from
Indiana
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research
Council
T.K. Cribb, former counselor to the Attorney
General
Alfred S. Regnery, publisher of The American
Spectator
