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

Hopefully that scumbag does not get the position.




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

I am a union steward. My union leadership is heavily on the left, not so for the members. I recently attended a refresher course in steward training. The course lasted several days, and all during lunch, we were besieged with leftist propaganda. One such luncheon involved the leaders appealing to us on who to vote for state supreme court judges. I laughed when the official said that they wanted the radical judges because they will determine policy. Last I remember of the state Constitution, modeled after the US Constititution, the judges interpret policies, not make them.

This leftist President is trying to destroy the Constitution right out from under us, and the American people know so little of this great document, that they are letting it happen right under their noses.

Look up "Radical Democracy"

and get back to me.

This "democracy" is nothing new. It is just a new face.

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

Click to expand...

Really, THAT's the evil they want to point out? The ability to "only" buy one gun a month?

OH MY GOD HE IS A COMMUNIST WHO WANTS TO KILL US ALL AND THEN TAKE THE MONEY AND GUNS FROM OUR DEAD BODIES!!!!!

ScottD said:

Really, THAT's the evil they want to point out? The ability to "only" buy one gun a month?

OH MY GOD HE IS A COMMUNIST WHO WANTS TO KILL US ALL AND THEN TAKE THE MONEY AND GUNS FROM OUR DEAD BODIES!!!!!

Click to expand...

The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right the government has no business infringing on that right.

jamesrage said:

The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right the government has no business infringing on that right.

Click to expand...

Once they take that right away, they'll take all the others. They are whittling away at them all right now.

jamesrage said:

The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right the government has no business infringing on that right.

Click to expand...

Putting sound limitations on a right is not taking it away. For example, you have the freedom of speech, but there are limitations on this freedom. You cannot threaten someone, you can not lie about someone (unless they are a public figure, Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell), etc. Rights can have limitations.

ScottD said:

Putting sound limitations on a right is not taking it away.

Click to expand...

What part of shall not infringe do you not understand? Restricting someone to a limit of one a month is an infringement. Its the equivalent of the government restricting which churches you may go to or which religion you can prescribe to or restricting the media to which stories they can report, restricting or limiting which grievances you can address to the government, or restricting what days you can peacefully assemble, restricting which topics you can protest about, restricting where you can protest even though it may be on a sidewalk or anywhere else that doesn't block traffic or restrict access to property.

For example, you have the freedom of speech, but there are limitations on this freedom. You cannot threaten someone, you can not lie about someone (unless they are a public figure, Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell), etc. Rights can have limitations.

Click to expand...

Putting restrictions on rights is an infringement period,especially when that right says no infringement.
What if we applied the same standards to 1st amendment rights that anti-2nd amendment nuts want on the 2nd amendment?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...nals-wont-obey-gun-laws-2.html#post1058349064

You must present a license to go to political debate forums,chat on the phone,talk or write letters to anyone, go to church, be a reporter, protest or to address grievances to the government.




You must take classes on what is and isn't offensive, what constitutes libel and treason. If you want to join a church you must take classes first on what that religion believes in as so not to offend them or be surprised when certain issues come up.

You must register you pencil, paper,computers,telephone and anything else used for verbal or nonverbal communication, you must register your bibles and other religious books and anything else used to exercise 1st amendment rights. You can only purchase those things once a month.

Ideally each pencil or pack of pencils should have a unique lead content so that if someone writes a threatening letter it can be traced back to the person who bought the pencil.Paper should have a unique composition so that a threatening letter can be traced back to the person who bought the paper Computers and computer hardware should be registered so that if someone downloads copyrighted material,slanders someone,threatens someone or downloads child porn the computer can be traced back to the person who bought it.
Bibles should have a unique serial number just in case someone hits someone over the head with it or uses it for hate speech and leaves it at the scene it can be traced back to it's original owner.
Telephones/cellphones and any other device used for communication should have a unique serial number as its parts and be registered with the government so that if you make a threatening phone call,slander someone, spreads hate speech, or anything else the government can trace it back to the person who bought it.

You must pass a criminal back ground check before getting a 1st amendment license.

ScottD said:

Putting sound limitations on a right is not taking it away. For example, you have the freedom of speech, but there are limitations on this freedom. You cannot threaten someone, you can not lie about someone (unless they are a public figure, Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell), etc. Rights can have limitations.

Click to expand...

Strawman. The equivalent acts involving a firearm are already illegal.

Exactly what 2nd Amendment right has been infringed on? Are you or are you not still free to purchase a hand gun, ammunition, and other weaponry you desire as long as you following the laws regarding the purchase and transport of hand guns/weapons? How does limiting you to purchasing a hand gun per month take away your right to bear arms? You can still do it, just not in great volumn ...that is in Jersey City if their legislators have any say in the matter. To that, I'd say you're getting quite a bit ahead of yourself here.

First off, ACORN nor any of its membership or governing body (board members) are part of the Obama Administration nor are they a part of Congress. So, I doubt if they have anything to say about the matter.

Second, Judge David Hamilton hasn't even been appointed let alone confirmed. Speak out against him if you wish - it's your 1st Amendment right to do so. But let's not go overboard on what you think may happen.

Your right to bear arms hasn't been taken away nor have the laws of such been limited to such a degree that says you can't still purchase them. So, relax.

Objective Voice said:

Exactly what 2nd Amendment right has been infringed on? Are you or are you not still free to purchase a hand gun, ammunition, and other weaponry you desire as long as you following the laws regarding the purchase and transport of hand guns/weapons? How does limiting you to purchasing a hand gun per month take away your right to bear arms? You can still do it, just not in great volumn ...that is in Jersey City if their legislators have any say in the matter. To that, I'd say you're getting quite a bit ahead of yourself here.

First off, ACORN nor any of its membership or governing body (board members) are part of the Obama Administration nor are they a part of Congress. So, I doubt if they have anything to say about the matter.

Second, Judge David Hamilton hasn't even been appointed let alone confirmed. Speak out against him if you wish - it's your 1st Amendment right to do so. But let's not go overboard on what you think may happen.

Your right to bear arms hasn't been taken away nor have the laws of such been limited to such a degree that says you can't still purchase them. So, relax.

Click to expand...

How does limiting the amount of speech per month actually infringe upon the right to free speech? You can still practice free speech.

Exactly. Hence, I don't understand what some here are getting at. Limitations on a right doesn't take the right away. It only means you can go only so far or have to meet some standard/eligibility requirement, etc., before you can pursue that right in full. But it by no means take it away.

For example, you have the right to vote as long as you're 18 yrs of age and are a U.S. citizen. But what if the voting age was moved up to 21 instead? Does that take away your voting right or just move the standard?

Same thing with this Jersey City gun limitation proposal. It doesn't take away your right to bear arms; just places a limit on how many guns you can buy in a 30-day period. Your right hasn't been taken away nor limited in such a way that say what weapons you can and cannot buy, just the volumn and timeframe inwhich you can make purchases of same.

But again, all of this is hypothetical. No such laws on a national level have been proposed. So, again I say relax folks. No need to panic over something that hasn't even happen or been proposed by Congress...yet.

Objective Voice said:

Exactly. Hence, I don't understand what some here are getting at. Limitations on a right doesn't take the right away. It only means you can go only so far or have to meet some standard/eligibility requirement, etc., before you can pursue that right in full. But it by no means take it away.

For example, you have the right to vote as long as you're 18 yrs of age and are a U.S. citizen. But what if the voting age was moved up to 21 instead? Does that take away your voting right or just move the standard?

Same thing with this Jersey City gun limitation proposal. It doesn't take away your right to bear arms; just places a limit on how many guns you can buy in a 30-day period. Your right hasn't been taken away nor limited in such a way that say what weapons you can and cannot buy, just the volumn and timeframe inwhich you can make purchases of same.

But again, all of this is hypothetical. No such laws on a national level have been proposed. So, again I say relax folks. No need to panic over something that hasn't even happen or been proposed by Congress...yet.

Click to expand...

What if you're only allowed to say ten words a month, or if you're only allowed to worship at certain places? Is that still free speech or freedom of religion?

jamesrage said:

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

Click to expand...

Define a "Radical's Radical" for us, boo.

jamesrage said:

He has been called "extreme" by some.

Click to expand...

Did he rape and murder a young girl like Glenn Beck did?

jamesrage said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is more or less how the law evolves in a common law system of law, bro.

jamesrage said:

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.

Click to expand...

I share that view.

Of course, we have seen this pattern time and time again. Judges ignore the clear wording of the Constitution

Click to expand...

There is a lot of unclear wording in the Constitution, bro. In fact, much of it was written to be intentionally ambiguous.

in essence, amending the Constitution through each new case they decide.

Click to expand...

When a court settle a dispute between two parties who hold conflicting interpretations of a provision of the Constitution, it could be said that the Constitution was amended. However, I would say it was expounded or explained.

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

Click to expand...

The Second Amendment is useless piece of ambiguous crap, bro.

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.

Click to expand...

The U. S. is an extreme far left country, bro. That's why we elected the extreme far left Obama.

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.

Click to expand...

It is debatable whether the Second Amendment actually establishes any thing, because it's basically nonsense.

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.

Click to expand...

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Lugar has never failed to support one of Obama's anti-gun nominations, as evidenced by his votes for Attorney General Eric Holder.

Click to expand...

Holder isn't anti-gun, bro.

Whip Comes Down said:

That is more or less how the law evolves in a common law system of law, bro.

Click to expand...

That's how the common law develops in a common law system. Reasonable people can disagree about whether that's how constitutional or statutory interpretation should play out. Furthermore, I don't think the objection is really to the exact words that he said so much as it is to the meaning behind them.

That being said, I don't think that anything in this article indicates that he's so far outside the judicial mainstream that he shouldn't be confirmed. He's a Fulbright Scholar from Yale Law, so he's probably bright enough. One mildly troubling thing is the fact that his sister-in-law is Obama's nominee for AAG in the OLC, but I don't think that's a disqualifier.

Objective Voice said:

Exactly what 2nd Amendment right has been infringed on? Are you or are you not still free to purchase a hand gun, ammunition, and other weaponry you desire as long as you following the laws regarding the purchase and transport of hand guns/weapons?

Click to expand...

A limitation is an infringement. The government telling me I can only purchase one firearm a month is an infringement.

How does limiting you to purchasing a hand gun per month take away your right to bear arms?

You can still do it, just not in great volumn ...that is in Jersey City if their legislators have any say in the matter. To that, I'd say you're getting quite a bit ahead of yourself here.

Click to expand...

It is an infringement.Its like the government saying you can only go to certain churches or you only chat at political forums once a month or any other things that encroach on those rights.

Second, Judge David Hamilton hasn't even been appointed let alone confirmed. Speak out against him if you wish - it's your 1st Amendment right to do so. But let's not go overboard on what you think may happen.

Click to expand...

It is better to be safe than sorry when it comes to potential judges.

Your right to bear arms hasn't been taken away nor have the laws of such been limited to such a degree that says you can't still purchase them. So, relax.

Click to expand...

Considering the last time there was a house full of democrats and a democrat president they created the Brady bill and considering the states these democrats come from it is something for someone who values the 2nd amendment to worry about.

RightinNYC said:

That's how the common law develops in a common law system. Reasonable people can disagree about whether that's how constitutional or statutory interpretation should play out. Furthermore, I don't think the objection is really to the exact words that he said so much as it is to the meaning behind them.

That being said, I don't think that anything in this article indicates that he's so far outside the judicial mainstream that he shouldn't be confirmed. He's a Fulbright Scholar from Yale Law, so he's probably bright enough. One mildly troubling thing is the fact that his sister-in-law is Obama's nominee for AAG in the OLC, but I don't think that's a disqualifier.

Click to expand...

I wish there were more Republicans like you.

Whip Comes Down said:

Did he rape and murder a young girl like Glenn Beck did?

Click to expand...

Have to admit, that's the first time I've ever seen this bit of nonsense before.

jamesrage said:

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.

Click to expand...

So basically he's just saying what they are are doing?

Anyone remember the nomination of Judge Brown by Duyba?

The only difference here is that Dillin is open about what he believes.

I wonder if Whip Comes down will bother to respond to this... absurd claim Glenn Beck Raped and murdered a girl.. I await this with... bemused anticipation.

MrVicchio said:

I wonder if Whip Comes down will bother to respond to this... absurd claim Glenn Beck Raped and murdered a girl.. I await this with... bemused anticipation.

Click to expand...

but he never claimed that, did he?

jamesrage said:

Its the equivalent of the government restricting which churches you may go to or which religion you can prescribe to or restricting the media to which stories they can report, restricting or limiting which grievances you can address to the government, or restricting what days you can peacefully assemble, restricting which topics you can protest about, restricting where you can protest even though it may be on a sidewalk or anywhere else that doesn't block traffic or restrict access to property.

Click to expand...

The government infringes on lots of our rights that are spelled out in the Bill of Rights, not just the second amendment. I don't hear you complaining as bitterly about all of them as you do about gun issues. What is it about the second amendment that makes it so special?

As to the topic at hand, I have no problem with Obama nominating whoever he wants to the federal courts as long as they're qualified. I had no problem with George W. Bush doing the same. In my opinion, the senate should only be evaluating presidential judiciary appointments based upon their qualifications, and not their politics.