Obama's First Judicial Nominee - Far Left, Partisan And Well Connected

[stephanie]

but don't forget, the liberals tell us Obama is a "moderate"



President Barack Hussein Obama has just made his first judicial nomination. And he's a Leftist's wet dream.

Judge David Hamilton has been chosen by Obama to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. His background is interesting, to say the least.

Hamilton is now a federal judge the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, a nomination he received from Bill Clinton. At that time, the liberal ABA rated him as “not qualified” when Clinton nominated him for the post back in 1994.He was still confirmed by a voice vote by the Senate, where the Democrats had a majority.

Hamilton's a former ACLU and ACORN lawyer,and his tenure on the bench has been marked by some interesting decisions. He issued a ruling that made it easier for child sex offenders to move around Indiana by invalidating a local version of Megan's Law designed to protect children by keeping tabs of their whereabouts. He also has the typical ACLU 'tude when it comes to suppressing evidence and warrants. And he ruled against waiting periods for those women seeking abortions.

In one of his rulings that made headlines, Hinrichs v. Bosma, Hamilton ruled that prayers in Jesus' Name at the Indiana House of Representatives was unconstitutional, but prayers to Allah were not,

read the rest
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/200...-far-left.html

[Little-Acorn]

Elections have consequences.

We elected an extreme-left President, and an extreme-left Senate to confirm his appointments.

We get the government we deserve. This judge is just the first of many examples.

[PostmodernProphet]

rubbing a clear spot in my crystal ball, I predict that the Senate Judiciary committee will NOT need forty-eight months to vote on whether he should be approved......unlike previous appointments......

[Monkeybone]

yah! Indiana is in the news!

[moderate democrat]

this judge was obviously not unpalatable to the senate republicans in 1994. They could have easily filibustered his nomination if they'd wanted to.

[PostmodernProphet]

this judge was obviously not unpalatable to the senate republicans in 1994. They could have easily filibustered his nomination if they'd wanted to.

Republicans do not, historically, treat presidential judicial nominations in the same way Democrats do....in other words, if your looking for obstructionism, you need to look at Democrats.....

[stephanie]

remember when the Democrats made one of the Bush appointed judges wife cry, the attacts against him was disgusting..

and once again we have Dingy Harrie Reid recently accusing one of the Bush judges of lying to them..

this is the Democrat party...

[moderate democrat]

Republicans do not, historically, treat presidential judicial nominations in the same way Democrats do....in other words, if your looking for obstructionism, you need to look at Democrats.....

I suggest you review the actions of republicans in the senate during the Clinton administration vis a vis obstruction of judicial appointments.... and then revise that comment.

[PostmodernProphet]

I suggest you review the actions of republicans in the senate during the Clinton administration vis a vis obstruction of judicial appointments.... and then revise that comment.

I don't see anything to make me revise it....if you have some evidence, trot it out.....in the meantime, who was the last appointee from Bush that the Democrats approved?......

[moderate democrat]

I don't see anything to make me revise it....if you have some evidence, trot it out.....in the meantime, who was the last appointee from Bush that the Democrats approved?......

are you suggesting that senate republicans did not stall and hold up Clinton judicial appointments? really?

[PostmodernProphet]

are you suggesting that senate republicans did not stall and hold up Clinton judicial appointments? really?

I'm suggesting that if you want to say it, prove it.....

[theHawk]

this judge was obviously not unpalatable to the senate republicans in 1994. They could have easily filibustered his nomination if they'd wanted to.

Ahh...where would liberals like yourself be if they didn't have relativism?

[moderate democrat]

I'm suggesting that if you want to say it, prove it.....

If I said that 110 is less than 147, would you ask me to PROVE that as well? Good Lord, PMP....some things are so well known and in the public domain that asking someone to "prove" them is really insulting to one's intelligence.

[Kathianne]

are you suggesting that senate republicans did not stall and hold up Clinton judicial appointments? really?

The question has changed since I last visited this thread. Now it's 'stall and hold up', no longer 'deny' a hearing or vote.

[PostmodernProphet]

If I said that 110 is less than 147, would you ask me to PROVE that as well? Good Lord, PMP....some things are so well known and in the public domain that asking someone to "prove" them is really insulting to one's intelligence.

???....since when do you have intelligence to insult?........