In an editorial, The New York Times again touted David Hamilton, a judicial activist on steroids, for the 7th Circuit Appeals Court.
When the current U.S. district court judge was first nominated for the appeals court, a Times news story described him as a “moderate.” Sure — and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is middle-of-the road.
The editorial called Hamilton “a well-respected federal district court judge in Indiana,” whose “rulings appear to be guided by an honest belief in applying the law fairly.”
Applying the law fairly — as in equal treatment? Not.
Hamilton — who worked for the ACLU before going on the bench — ruled it was unconstitutional for the Indiana House of Representatives to open its sessions with a prayer invoking Jesus. According to Hamilton, this somehow constituted an establishment of religion and a theocracy was just around the corner.
At the same time, prayers in the name of Allah were perfectly acceptable, the judge held. In other words, prayers that mention Jesus at the opening of a legislative session in a nation that’s 75% Christian — and which was founded on Judeo-Christian principles — are unconstitutional,
But prayers in the name of a deity who has inspired acts of terrorism around the world (including the 9/11 attacks) meet constitutional muster, in Hamilton’s twisted thinking.
Prayer isn’t the only place where Hamilton has gone off the deep end. He overturned an Indiana law that required women seeking abortions to be provided with information on the physical and psychological risks, as well as alternatives. His ruling here, as well as on prayer, was overturned by the same appellate court to which the president is now trying to appoint him.
Of course The New York Times considers Hamilton a “well-respected” “moderate” and a model of fairness. If Obama appointed Michael Moore to the federal bench, The Times would think he was even more moderate, well-respected and fair.