[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Page 27780]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          HAMILTON NOMINATION

  Mr. INHOFE. As I am rounding third and heading home, I am concerned 
that we are going to be voting this afternoon on the nomination of 
David Hamilton to be a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. I 
think Hamilton is, without question, a liberal activist judge. He 
believes judges do not simply interpret the Constitution of the United 
States but that judges have the power to actually change the 
Constitution when deciding cases, stating that--this is his quote, Mr. 
President--``part of our job here as judges is to write a series of 
footnotes to the Constitution.'' This is exactly what our Founding 
Fathers did not want us to do. Judges are supposed to interpret what we 
do in this Chamber.
  When he was nominated to the district court in 1994, the American Bar 
Association rated him as not qualified. I voted against him for a 
number of reasons back in 1994. I don't very often agree with Vice 
President Biden, but I have to say this. Vice President Biden made a 
statement some time ago with which I do agree. That is, if you are in 
the Senate and you have a judge who is coming up for confirmation by 
the Senate, and if you oppose that judge when he comes up to be a 
Federal judge, then later on when he wants to become a circuit judge or 
even a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, if you opposed him at a lower 
position, you have to oppose him at the next position because the bar 
necessarily goes up. For that reason and many other reasons, I will be 
opposing him.
  I think it is important that in 2003, in A Woman's Choice v. Newman, 
Hamilton issued an injunction against an Indiana law that required 
abortion clinics to give women information about alternatives to 
abortions in the presence of a physician, nurse, or somebody else--just 
to have that information. This is inconceivable to me this could 
happen.
  Let's keep in mind also this is the same judge who had a ruling--
perhaps the most infamous because of his 2005 decision while presiding 
over the case of Hinrichs v. Bosma in which he enjoined the Speaker of 
Indiana's House of Representatives from permitting sectarian prayers to 
be offered as a part of that body's official proceedings, meaning that 
the chaplain or whoever opened the proceedings with a prayer could not 
invoke the name of Jesus Christ in his prayer.
  In his conclusion, Hamilton wrote:

       If the Speaker chooses to continue any form of legislative 
     prayer, he should advise persons offering such a prayer (a) 
     that it must be nonsectarian and must not be used to 
     proselytize or advance any one faith over another. This is 
     the first time and only time I believe this has happened in a 
     nomination. This will be coming up for confirmation. I hope 
     all of America will be aware of the fact this is happening.

                          ____________________