Obama Pushing a "Radical's Radical" to the Federal Bench

-- Vote could come as early as Monday

Gun Owners of America - Thursday, November 12, 2009

He has been called "extreme" by some.  But to others, he's beyond extreme... he's a "Radical's Radical."

Whatever he is, he could become President Obama's next choice for the federal judiciary.

This radical is Judge David Hamilton, and he's been nominated for a position on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Hamilton has made many political enemies on the right, seeing that his politics are to the far left of the political spectrum.  Oh yes, judges aren't supposed to be political, but this one has engaged in quite a bit of leftist activism.

His biggest opponent on Capitol Hill is Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Based on his analysis of Hamilton, gun owners should be very concerned about a judge who is all to willing to "amend the Constitution."  According to Senator Sessions:

"Judge Hamilton stated in a 2003 speech that the role of a judge includes writing footnotes to 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." In explaining this statement to Senator Hatch, Judge Hamilton wrote that he believes the Framers intended judges to amend the Constitution through evolving case law."

Of course, we have seen this pattern time and time again.  Judges ignore the clear wording of the Constitution -- in essence, amending the Constitution through each new case they decide.

The courts then become the vehicle for rewriting the Second Amendment!

Not surprisingly, Judge Hamilton's politics are to the extreme, far left.  He spent a brief stint as a fundraiser for ACORN, the organization that was an aggressive supporter of Barack Obama in the presidential election.  In addition to all the evils surrounding ACORN is the fact that the organization has lobbied against Second Amendment rights -- as seen by the New Jersey chapter supporting a one-gun-a-month ordinance in Jersey City.

Certainly any judicial nomination put forth by our anti-gun President is suspect, but it's interesting to note who his chief backer is in the U.S. Senate.  It's none other than Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, who holds an "F" rating from Gun Owners of America.

Lugar has never failed to support one of Obama's anti-gun nominations, as evidenced by his votes for Attorney General Eric Holder, State Department lawyer Harold Koh, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the incredibly wacky Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein.

On policy questions, Senator Lugar is no better.  To wit, he voted against repealing the gun ban in Washington, DC this year.

Considering Hamilton's extreme track record, it’s no wonder that Senator Lugar -- in introducing Hamilton to his colleagues -- begged his fellow Senators to ignore the judge's policy views.  Lugar asked them not to base their votes on "partisan considerations, much less on how we hope or predict a given judicial nominee will 'vote' on particular issues of public moment or controversy."

Instead, Lugar asked his colleagues "to evaluate judicial candidates on whether they have the requisite intellect, experience, character and temperament that Americans deserve from their judges...."

In other words, ignore Judge Hamilton's liberalism and just vote for him because he's so smart and because he's such a nice guy!

Judge Hamilton's rulings have made a lot of enemies on the political right, especially the one in Hinrichs v. Bosma where, according to a November 3 editorial in The Washington Times, he "prohibited prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives that expressly mentioned Jesus Christ... yet he allowed prayers which mentioned Allah."

Gun owners have much to be concerned about, as well.  Anytime a judge who believes in rewriting the Constitution is elevated to sit as an appellate judge, that's a scary thing -- especially given the fact that most cases never reach the U.S. Supreme Court and are, thus, decided at lower levels in the federal judiciary.