Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Federal Appeals Court to get ACLU/ACORN judge

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    242

    Post imported post

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...lu-acorn-judge

    "President Barack Obama’s first judicial nomination worked for a radical leftist community group under federal investigation and received a “not qualified” rating from the American Bar Association when Bill Clinton assigned him to Indiana’s federal district court.

    David Hamilton, a federal district judge for 14 years, has been selected to join the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago, the last stop before the Supreme Court for cases from Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin. If confirmed by Congress, Hamilton would fill the vacancy created when Judge Kenneth Ripple took senior status in September.

    When Clinton nominated Hamilton to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in 1994, the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rated him “not qualified.” The committee reversed its own rating after Obama’s nomination, so as of this month, the ABA claims Hamilton is “well qualified.”

    Judge Hamilton has other skeletons in his closet. He worked as a fundraiser for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the corrupt nonprofit best known for conducting fraudulent voter registration drives around the country and pressuring banks to give minorities loans they can’t afford.

    Under perpetual federal investigation, Chicago-based ACORN admitted hiring convicted felons and “lazy crack heads” as canvassers during the 2008 presidential election and falsifying information to register new voters nationwide. A few years ago ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State after workers were caught submitting thousands of fake registration forms.

    Judge Hamilton also had a leadership role in the leftwing American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and he is considered a liberal activist whose rulings indicate he’s soft on crime, radically pro-abortion, and hostile towards religion. Hamilton invalidated Indiana sex offender laws that protected children from predators, has regularly helped criminal defendants by suppressing evidence and warrants and ruled that prayers at the start of Indiana legislative sessions violate the Constitution. "

    I suggest you all email/FAX your Reps about this one - it's going to be a pattern if you don't.

    http://www.theorator.com/senate.html
    http://www.theorator.com/government/house.html Pete

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    Amazing !

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    That last paragraph makes me dismiss the entire rant:
    Judge Hamilton also had a leadership role in the leftwing American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and he is considered a liberal activist whose rulings indicate he’s soft on crime, radically pro-abortion, and hostile towards religion. Hamilton invalidated Indiana sex offender laws that protected children from predators, has regularly helped criminal defendants by suppressing evidence and warrants and ruled that prayers at the start of Indiana legislative sessions violate the Constitution. "
    The ACLU is only "leftwing" [sic] if you consider protecting the Constitution (minus Second Amendment) "left wing" - they stand up for people's 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th (and arguably10th) Amendment rights quite often.

    "Soft on crime" is a political play phrase that makes me cringe. It's used by those against firearms to say "anyone who doesn't support this measure banning so and so gun is soft on crime because criminals commit crimes with it." Using it to disparage a person or group only makes me think you're stupid and short sighted.

    "Radically pro-abortion" - well, I would doubt the person is pro-abortion, most of us who are pro-choice aren't pro-abortion. Claiming we want people to get abortions is absurd; it's often something with psychological consequences. However, those consequences are better than the alternative - seeking a back alley abortion due to it being illegal and ending up dead.

    "Hostile towards religion" - how so? Would it be okay if everyone were required to do/engage/watch/participate in a Muslim prayer, or a Tibetan chant, or any other state-sponsored religious exhibition at the start of a meeting? If not, why not?



    As an aside, judicialwatch needs to fix their site - it's been compromised due to lack of knowledge and experience with technology - surprise, surprise.

    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National City, CA, ,
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    "most of us who are pro-choice aren't pro-abortion"

    Enlighten me here please. Honest question. The "choice" here is the "right to choose abortion", right?

    Enlighten me, please. This sounds to me as saying I am pro-2A/RKBA but not pro-gun ownership".



    :?

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    KS_to_CA wrote:
    Enlighten me, please. This sounds to me as saying I am pro-2A/RKBA but not pro-gun ownership".



    :?
    You do realize that guns aren't the only arms that is protected by the 2nd amendment right? You do realize that there are some folks who vehemently defend the 2nd amendment as an individual constitutional right, and don't personally own a gun themselves right (Robert Levy of CATO and Heller fame)?

  6. #6
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770

    Post imported post

    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    242

    Post imported post

    Tawnos - I gave up in disgust over the ACLU over a year ago.

    They support:

    Muslim women not having to remove their hijab (headscarves):
    http://blog.aclu.org/2008/12/19/a-ca...f-all-beliefs/

    "Immigrant" RIGHTS:
    http://blog.aclu.org/category/immigrants-rights/

    (Any organization that's in love with Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and against the 287(g) program is actively working for the destruction of the very fabric of America).

    Lesbian/Gay/Bi-Sexual/Transvestite "rights"
    http://blog.aclu.org/category/lgbt-rights/

    They do not support the Second Amendment - period - which makes them flamingly two-faced and totally incapable of being trusted in any other area.

    I notice you didn't even respond to the topic itself, just the ACLU hit (which they deserved).

    What're your thoughts on the nominee's association as a fundraiser for ACORN?

    Perhaps that's an organization we should should all bow down and worship, too??

    Bottom line is that this nomination should be opposed by every single gun-owner in the United States. He's a flaming liberal - which is the last kind of individual gun-owners need on the bench of any court right now (much less as a potential down-the-road Supreme Court nominee). Pete

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    I'll go over this point by point:


    Tawnos - I gave up in disgust over the ACLU over a year ago.

    They support:

    Muslim women not having to remove their hijab (headscarves):
    http://blog.aclu.org/2008/12/19/a-ca...f-all-beliefs/
    Why should they have to remove their hijab? If you're Muslim and wear a hijab, a Christan and wear a cross, a pastafarian and wear spaghetti, why should you be required to remove those parts of your religion? You're essentially stating that their religion isn't valid enough to be exercised.

    "Immigrant" RIGHTS:
    http://blog.aclu.org/category/immigrants-rights/

    (Any organization that's in love with Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and against the 287(g) program is actively working for the destruction of the very fabric of America).
    Now you're speaking in absolutes and superlatives, hyperbole of the worst degree. Since you didn't provide analysis why it's a bad thing to support equal HUMAN rights for people in our country, there's not much I can address here.

    Lesbian/Gay/Bi-Sexual/Transvestite "rights"
    http://blog.aclu.org/category/lgbt-rights/
    And what, pray tell, is wrong with that? Is everyone equal, except for the straight people, which are more equal than others? Yeah, I support LGBT rights and privileges as well, especially those granted to those of us who are straight but denied to those who are not.

    They do not support the Second Amendment - period - which makes them flamingly two-faced and totally incapable of being trusted in any other area.


    I agree that they don't support the Second Amendment in any meaningful context. Their interpretation is on the face laughable (read the Miller decision by which they claim their analysis is based, and tell me where it says that only militias get weapons, not that people only get weapons useful for militas).

    However, I don't think that they are, therefore, totally incapable of being trusted in any other area. Many people have parts of their lives in which they disagree with me, hold inconsistent thoughts, or undertake hypocritical action. That does not preclude them from being right in other things. See: poisoning the well (logical fallacy).

    I notice you didn't even respond to the topic itself, just the ACLU hit (which they deserved).

    What're your thoughts on the nominee's association as a fundraiser for ACORN?

    Perhaps that's an organization we should should all bow down and worship, too??
    Uh, the "ACLU hit" was the shortest response of all. I also addressed the loaded terms of "soft on crime" as well as "radically pro abortion" and "hostile towards religion."

    As for ACORN - I'm sure everyone has a group with which they worked that might somehow reflect poorly on them. When I was still Christian, I worked at a church whose pastor later was found to be both an embezzler and an adulterer. Should I be judged on the actions of this individual, if I had no control or knowledge that it was going on? If I give money to a charity that is later found to be undertaking illegal activities, does that make me culpable for funding them? Of course, that's if you can even prove the allegations against ACORN as anything more than wharrgarbl
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    SFCRetired wrote:
    Try this; I am, in some ways, against abortion. However, I do not want to see the right to choose again subjugated to political pressures.

    I lived through a time in our country when the only way a woman could get an abortion was from an illegal, back-alley butcher. I don't know how many young women died nor how many were rendered sterile because of infections caused by poorly sterilized instruments.

    I do not think abortion should be considered as a primary means of birth control and I do think there should be some required counseling for women who are getting multiple abortions.

    Finally, I do not really think any man should have a say in what a woman can or cannot do with her body until a man gets pregnant and has a baby.

    Radical old buzzard, ain't I?

    +1

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    Double post

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NoVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    431

    Post imported post

    Tawnos is right but fairly caustic about his position(s). Libertarians find it hard not to be this way and that's one of the reasons we don't recruit well.
    The ACLU has been on the side of our Constitutional Rights more often than not.
    I hate their illegal immigration stance and their RKBA stance of course, but don't throw the baby out w/ the bath water.
    I'll use them to our advantage any day.
    This is getting WAY off topic, esp if we go down the Abortion trail.
    He appointed a far-left liberal who is LIKELY (I'd like to see the case history before I decide) to gut our RKBA. That's the point of this post.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    I'll go over this point by point:


    Tawnos - I gave up in disgust over the ACLU over a year ago.

    They support:

    Muslim women not having to remove their hijab (headscarves):
    http://blog.aclu.org/2008/12/19/a-ca...f-all-beliefs/
    Why should they have to remove their hijab? If you're Muslim and wear a hijab, a Christan and wear a cross, a pastafarian and wear spaghetti, why should you be required to remove those parts of your religion? You're essentially stating that their religion isn't valid enough to be exercised.

    "Immigrant" RIGHTS:
    http://blog.aclu.org/category/immigrants-rights/

    (Any organization that's in love with Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and against the 287(g) program is actively working for the destruction of the very fabric of America).
    Now you're speaking in absolutes and superlatives, hyperbole of the worst degree. Since you didn't provide analysis why it's a bad thing to support equal HUMAN rights for people in our country, there's not much I can address here.

    Lesbian/Gay/Bi-Sexual/Transvestite "rights"
    http://blog.aclu.org/category/lgbt-rights/
    And what, pray tell, is wrong with that? Is everyone equal, except for the straight people, which are more equal than others? Yeah, I support LGBT rights and privileges as well, especially those granted to those of us who are straight but denied to those who are not.

    They do not support the Second Amendment - period - which makes them flamingly two-faced and totally incapable of being trusted in any other area.


    I agree that they don't support the Second Amendment in any meaningful context. Their interpretation is on the face laughable (read the Miller decision by which they claim their analysis is based, and tell me where it says that only militias get weapons, not that people only get weapons useful for militas).

    However, I don't think that they are, therefore, totally incapable of being trusted in any other area. Many people have parts of their lives in which they disagree with me, hold inconsistent thoughts, or undertake hypocritical action. That does not preclude them from being right in other things. See: poisoning the well (logical fallacy).

    I notice you didn't even respond to the topic itself, just the ACLU hit (which they deserved).

    What're your thoughts on the nominee's association as a fundraiser for ACORN?

    Perhaps that's an organization we should should all bow down and worship, too??
    Uh, the "ACLU hit" was the shortest response of all. I also addressed the loaded terms of "soft on crime" as well as "radically pro abortion" and "hostile towards religion."

    As for ACORN - I'm sure everyone has a group with which they worked that might somehow reflect poorly on them. When I was still Christian, I worked at a church whose pastor later was found to be both an embezzler and an adulterer. Should I be judged on the actions of this individual, if I had no control or knowledge that it was going on? If I give money to a charity that is later found to be undertaking illegal activities, does that make me culpable for funding them? Of course, that's if you can even prove the allegations against ACORN as anything more than wharrgarbl
    You make me sick

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Chaingun81 wrote:
    You make me sick
    It's okay, there are medications for that now. Though if you could tell me why I make you sick, it might help the diagnosis .

    Do I make you sick because you disagree with my "live and let live" philosophy?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    ufcfanvt wrote:
    Tawnos is right but fairly caustic about his position(s). Libertarians find it hard not to be this way and that's one of the reasons we don't recruit well.
    The ACLU has been on the side of our Constitutional Rights more often than not.
    I hate their illegal immigration stance and their RKBA stance of course, but don't throw the baby out w/ the bath water.
    I'll use them to our advantage any day.
    This is getting WAY off topic, esp if we go down the Abortion trail.
    He appointed a far-left liberal who is LIKELY (I'd like to see the case history before I decide) to gut our RKBA. That's the point of this post.
    There is simply no information here about the guy's stand on the RTKBA.

    It is quite possible to be a flaming liberal and in favor of 2A rights: I suppose both Tawnos and I fit the bill on that one.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrot
    There is simply no information here about the guy's stand on the RTKBA.

    It is quite possible to be a flaming liberal and in favor of 2A rights: I suppose both Tawnos and I fit the bill on that one.
    You forgot me. Btw, it's also possible to be a progressive liberal and to have NOT voted for Obama/Biden either.

    Also, I don't really get it. There seems to be some folks who are against gun control and gun regulation, and then on the other turn support police state tactics in violation of the 4th amendment, 1st amendment, equal protection, etc, against folks they don't particularly like.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Possibilities are not the same as probabilities. So what evidence do you offer that he shares the same view as you on RKBA issues?

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Same as virtually every other CoA nominee: none at all.

    If we want evidence either way, we will need Senators to ask good questions at confirmation hearings.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Anybody know what percentage of Clinton appointed judges could be considered pro RKBA?

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    longwatch wrote:
    Anybody know what percentage of Clinton appointed judges could be considered pro RKBA?
    I would have to guess somewhere between 0 and -i
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    longwatch wrote:
    Anybody know what percentage of Clinton appointed judges could be considered pro RKBA?
    I would have to guess somewhere between 0 and -i
    Besides Emmerson and Parker there really has not been alot of action in the Court of Appeals on this issue that we could use to measure by.

    Here in the 4th Circuit, i would guess that the pre-Parker case that followed Miller was written by a bunch of Republican appointees: but I would also speculate that their appointer's party affiliation had little to do with their ultimate stand on this issue.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •