Author Topic: Obama Appeals Court Nominee says Judges Can Amend the Constitution w/ footnotes  (Read 1675 times)

Hazcat

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10457
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
By Christopher Neefus

CNSNews.com) – U.S. senators on Thursday will debate and vote on the nomination of Judge David F. Hamilton, President Obama's first judicial nominee.
 
Hamilton, who would sit on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago if confirmed, has said his decisions as a federal judge can “amend” the U.S. Constitution by adding “footnotes” to it.
 
At the 2003 dedication of a U.S. courthouse in Indiana named after former Sen. Birch Bayh (D-Ind.), Hamilton quoted someone else's comment that judges write “footnotes.”
 
He told the audience: “Let’s start with the Constitution. Judge S. Hugh Dillin of this court has said that part of our job here as judges is to write a series of footnotes to the Constitution. We all do that every year in cases large and small.”
 
That judicial philosophy led Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Hamilton at a rare second hearing on his nomination, held on April 29.
 
When Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) asked Hamilton what he meant by the statement, the judge told the senator: “(A)t least to me, the concept of a footnote implies what we’re trying to do is not something new but work out the details of how those principles apply to the new situations.”
 
But in an Oct. 30 letter to his colleagues, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, said that Hamilton, in written answers to follow-up questions submitted by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), had explained that making so-called footnotes to the Constitution was another means of amendment.
 
“Both the process of case-by-case adjudication and the Article V amendment processes are constitutionally legitimate and were both, in my view, expected by the Framers, provided that case-by-case interpretation follows the usual methods of legal reasoning and interpretation,” Hamilton told Hatch.
 
He qualified the statement by saying that if case law conflicted with an amendment made under Article V, “an amendment adopted under Article V clearly would take precedence over conflicting case law.
 
Sessions, in his letter to fellow senators, wrote: “This view evidences an activist judicial philosophy. Judges are not given the power to amend the Constitution or write footnotes to it.”

John Park, a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, agreed that Hamilton’s view of amendments was not constitutionally legitimate.
 
“The job of judges is to say what the law is and to apply it, not to make it or say what it ought to be,” Park told CNSNews.com, “and I don’t think that the Framers expected that the process of case-by-case adjudication would represent amending the Constitution.”

President Obama originally nominated Hamilton on March 17, saying the judge had “a history of handing down fair and judicious decisions” and that Hamilton would set the tone for future nominations.

Said Park: “If this is setting the tone, that is by endorsing the notion that the process of case-by-case adjudication represents the legitimate process of amending the Constitution, I think it’s the wrong tone to be setting.”

In a written response to Sen. Coburn, Hamilton also endorsed the “empathy” position for which Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor drew criticism during her confirmation process. Hamilton, however, made the comments in a written response to a question from Coburn before “empathy” became a keyword in the debate over nominees.

Hamilton said: “A judge needs to empathize with all parties in the case -- plaintiff and defendant, crime victim and accused defendant -- so that the judge can better understand how the parties came to be before the court and how legal rules affect those parties and others in similar situations.”
 
In an attempt to filibuster the nomination Monday, Sens. Sessions and Coburn voted “No” on cloture, the motion to allow Hamilton to proceed to the floor, along with 27 other Republicans. Sen. Hatch and 9 other Republicans joined 59 Democrats and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) in voting “Yea.”
 
Debate will begin on Hamilton’s confirmation Thursday after a period of morning business in the Senate, followed by an up-or-down vote.

Hamilton has served as a judge on the federal court in the Southern District of Indiana since 1994, and previously served as legal counsel to former Indiana Gov. – now senator -- Evan Bayh from 1989 to 1991.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57375
All tipoes and misspelings are copi-righted.  Pleeze do not reuse without ritten persimmons  :D

tombogan03884

  • Guest
How can this ass hat amend something he has obviously never read ?

ericire12

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7926
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Everything I needed to learn in life I learned from Country Music.

tombogan03884

  • Guest
A little mind with a big ego.
You realize I hope that a judge is nothing more than a Lawyer that kissed the right asses.
An Ambulance chaser with brown lips.

Pathfinder

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6451
  • DRTV Ranger -- NRA Life Member
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 86
One more name for the list of those to be prosecuted after this country rights itself.
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do this to others and I require the same from them"

J.B. Books

Sponsor

  • Guest

tombogan03884

  • Guest
One more name for the list of those to be prosecuted executed after this country rights itself.

twyacht

  • "Cogito, ergo armatum sum."
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10419
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0

President Obama originally nominated Hamilton on March 17, saying the judge had “a history of handing down fair and judicious decisions” and that Hamilton would set the tone for future nominations.

One of those "living document" type judges,.....

just a little footnote here and there to Constitutional Amendments?

Nominated by BHO? Why am I not surprised....

Thomas Jefferson: The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny of government. That is why our masters in Washington are so anxious to disarm us. They are not afraid of criminals. They are afraid of a populace which cannot be subdued by tyrants."
Col. Jeff Cooper.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk