ConfirmThem

What a depressing piece of news.

Maybe Obama will argue that in order to stimulate the economy, he needs to significantly expand the SC and the COA's in order to employee more people.

Good turn of phrase, Curt.

So sad it is true yet ironic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/us/politics/17nominate.html?_r=1&hp

"President Obama is expected to name his first candidate to an appeals court seat this week, officials said, choosing David F. Hamilton, a highly regarded federal trial court judge from Indiana, for the appeals court in Chicago.

Judge Hamilton, who is said by lawyers to represent some of his state’s traditionally moderate strain, served as counsel to Senator Evan Bayh when Mr. Bayh was the state’s governor; he is also a nephew of former Representative Lee H. Hamilton of Indiana.

A senior administration official said Judge Hamilton would have the support of both Mr. Bayh, a Democrat, and the state’s other senator, Richard G. Lugar, a Republican. He will be nominated for a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, based in Chicago.

The administration official said part of the reason for making the Hamilton nomination the administration’s first public entry into the often contentious field of judicial selection was to serve “as a kind of signal” about the kind of nominees Mr. Obama will select."

I know I'm more cynical than the average person, but doesn't that seem to signal that:
1) Obama is NOT going to renominate any of the nominees the Democrats held up under Bush, as it seems logical that any such people would be his first nominees.
2) If Hamilton gets through, it pre-empts the GOP in a sense. To wit, the GOP could (in theory anyway) say they are going to filibuster every nominee until Obama renominates at least a couple of the Bush ones. But once they let Hamilton through, that approach can't be pulled when the next batch of nominees are all ultraliberals.

I don't see it as a "signal" of any sort of moderation at all, just a baby carrot offered to the GOP before he pulls the rug out from under them. And of course Hamilton is only a moderate in that he's not quite as far left as some others, but he's still considered a liberal correct? This seems to "signal" that this is about the most "moderate" sort of nominee we can expect to see for the next four years.

Saw a headline she's getting chemo but don't know anything else.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

From Bench Memos [by Ed Whelan]

"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? That obstruction elicited this strong statement (emphasis added) from the Seventh Circuit panel majority that overturned Hamilton:

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 [i.e., Hamilton]) has held any similar law invalid in the years since Casey. Although Salerno does not foreclose all pre-enforcement challenges to abortion laws, it is an abuse of discretion for a district judge to issue a pre-enforcement injunction while the effects of the law (and reasons for those effects) are open to debate.

Or perhaps Hamilton’s inventive invocation of substantive due process to suppress evidence of a criminal defendant’s possession of cocaine, a ruling that, alas, was unanimously reversed by the Seventh Circuit?

With 'moderates' like Hamilton, imagine what Obama’s 'liberal' nominees will look like."

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=957

"Hamilton, David Frank
Born 1957 in Bloomington, IN

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana
Nominated by William J. Clinton on June 8, 1994, to a seat vacated by S. Hugh Dillin; Confirmed by the Senate on October 7, 1994, and received commission on October 11, 1994. Served as chief judge, 2008-present.

Education:
Haverford College, B.A., 1979

Yale Law School, J.D., 1983

Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Richard Cudahy, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1983-1984
Private practice, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1984-1989, 1991-1994
Counsel to the governor, Indiana, 1989-1991

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male"

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/03/obama-announces-first-judicial...

"President Barack Obama has settled on his first nominee for the federal judiciary, confirming a report this morning in The New York Times that he would choose Judge David Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

In a news release, Obama said he is nominating Hamilton to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Hamilton, if confirmed, would fill the vacancy created when Judge Kenneth Ripple took senior status in September.

“Judge Hamilton has a long and impressive record of service and a history of handing down fair and judicious decisions. He will be a thoughtful and distinguished addition to the 7th circuit and I am extremely pleased to put him forward to serve the people of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin,” Obama said in the news release.

The selection is notable because of its early timing — President George W. Bush named his first appellate nominees in May of his first year — and because Bush and President Bill Clinton named their first nominees for the federal bench in groups. Hamilton has the support of both Indiana senators, Democrat Evan Bayh and Republican Richard Lugar.

Hamilton worked as an associate and then partner at Barnes & Thornburg in Indianapolis and served as counsel to Bayh when he was governor. Hamilton served on the Indiana State Recount Commission and as chairman of the Indiana State Ethics Committee.

He is brothers with John Hamilton, who is the husband of Dawn Johnsen, nominee for assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel. He was law school classmates (Yale '83) with Ron Weich, expected to lead the Justice Department's Office of Legislative Affairs.

Some of the reaction so far:

Lugar: “I enthusiastically support the Senate confirmation of David Hamilton for U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Hamilton has served the Southern District of Indiana with distinction as U.S. District Court Judge.”

Bayh: “I was proud to work side by side with Senator Lugar to recommend Judge Hamilton for this lifetime appointment. President Obama is right that Democrats and Republicans can work together to put highly qualified jurists on the federal bench. Judge Hamilton is an exceptional jurist who has demonstrated the highest ethical standards and a firm commitment to applying our country's laws fairly.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.): “After the partisan and divisive approach that President Bush took with judicial nominations, I appreciate President Obama’s seriousness in making his selection, and his constructive engagement with both Senator Lugar and Senator Bayh, the Republican and Democratic home state Senators. The President is doing his part to remove these matters from partisan politics, and that’s a healthy change for the nation and for all three branches of government.”

Kathryn Kolbert, president of the liberal group People for the American Way: “David Hamilton is an ideal choice for this seat. Throughout his career, he has demonstrated a willingness to put principle ahead of politics and bring an open mind to every case. Judge Hamilton has shown a deep commitment to the rule of law and core constitutional principles of liberty, equality, and justice for all Americans. I’m encouraged not only that President Obama has made such a strong choice, but by his success in reaching across the aisle and winning the support of both of Indiana’s Senators. This is a very good sign for the caliber of nominees we can expect from this president. I urge the Senate to move quickly to confirm him.”

Ed Whelan of the conservative National Review Online: “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?”

Whelan also notes that a majority of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rated Hamilton “not qualified” when Clinton nominated him to the District Court in 1994. The ratings from the time (pdf) show the committee was split, with others voting for “qualified” or “well-qualified.”

UPDATE (1:20 p.m.): Curt Levey, executive director of the conservative Committee for Justice: “Even if we put aside Hamilton’s leadership role in the Indiana ACLU and his fundraising efforts for ACORN, an examination of his judicial record on abortion, the Establishment Clause, sex offenders and suppression of evidence indicate that he is decidedly liberal. More disturbingly, Hamilton’s rulings on those issues show that he has a penchant for judicial activism and overreach. If he’s part of the mainstream of legal thought – a charitable characterization – it’s only because he falls on the left edge of the mainstream. I expected Obama to appoint liberal judges, but I was certainly hoping they would be closer to the American center. Hopefully, Judge Hamilton’s nomination is a sop to the far left and thus unrepresentative of his future judicial picks.”

UPDATE II (1:35 p.m.): The ABA's committee has released a new rating (pdf) of "well-qualified." The vote appears to have been unanimous."

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/ratings111.pdf

http://www.abanet.org/scfedjud/ratings/ratings111.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/us/politics/11judges.html?_r=2

From recent reports, here are other COA nominees likely to get hearings soon:

Second Circuit: New York seat(replaces Loretta Preska as a nominee) - Gerard E. Lynch (Clinton-appointed district court judges

Fourth Circuit: 1) Maryland seat (replaces Rod Rosenstein as a nominee) - Andre Davis (failed Clinton)
2) Virginia Seat (replaces Glen Conrad as a nominee) - Elizabeth Magill (UVA professor)

Gerard E. Lynch - http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2866

Andre M. Davis - http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=570

M. Elizabeth Magill - http://www.law.virginia.edu/lawweb/Faculty.nsf/FHPbI/6973

He's nominated to the Ripple? (Reagan appointee?) seat?

And did W even try to fill this seat?

Wait, did they really get a rating out before the nomination is even made?

What hacks......

Where did you see the headline re RBG receiving chemo? The impression the mainstream media gave was that the cancer in the center of her pancreas was so small that there wasn't much of a need to worry about it....