An article in yesterday’s New York Times hails District Court Judge David F. Hamilton — likely to be Obama’s first nominee for the U.S. Appeals Court — as a “moderate.”
The article claims Hamilton is “a highly regarded federal trial court judge from Indiana,” who is “said by lawyers to represent some of his state’s traditionally moderate strain.”
Highly regarded by whom? Said to represent his state’s moderate strain by which lawyers? Quoting anonymous sources is one of the Times’ many techniques for slanting the news.
Before his appointment to the District Court, Hamilton was vice president for litigation and a member of the board of the Indiana ACLU. The Judicial Confirmation Network reports Hamilton was once a fundraiser for ACORN. How’s that for moderate?
In 2005, Hamilton ruled that the First Amendment prohibits prayers in the name of Jesus before opening sessions of the Indiana state legislature.
Hamilton permanently enjoined the Speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives from allowing other than non-sectarian prayers. Apparently, the name of Jesus uttered in a public setting is tantamount to the establishment of a national church. The 7th Circuit Appeals Court, to which Obama reportedly will name Hamilton, overturned his prayer decision.
Mr. Moderate also devoted considerable effort to blocking implementation of Indiana’s informed-consent law on abortion.
For The Times, there are no judicial activists or liberal nominees. Everyone is a moderate, unless they’re a conservative.
As Ann Coulter notes in her book, Guilty, in 1993, The Times greeted the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg with the headline, “Balanced Jurist at Home in the Middle.” (Ginsberg was also a former ACLU litigator, who immediately joined the left’s bloc on the Court.) But when Bush nominated John Roberts for Chief Justice in 2005, The Times had no difficulty labeling him a conservative (“An Advocate for the Right”).
Hamilton is a “moderate” only in the sense that Obama and The New York Times are moderate.