Obama’s 7th Circuit Nominee Thinks Praying In The Name Of Jesus Is Bad, But Praying To Allah Is Good
Recently Obama nominated David Hamilton to fill a vacancy on the federal bench in the 7th circuit. Democrats have moved quickly to ram-rod this appointment through the Senate with as little debate and scrutiny as possible. Republicans have responded by boycotting the nomination hearings. Which you heard about, right? I mean, surely the media wouldn’t let a pitched battle over one of Obama’s judicial appointments go unnoticed, would they?
Of course they would. But I digress. The reason why Republicans aren’t happy about the Democrats’ moves to appoint Hamilton just days after his nomination was announced (average lag between nomination and approval for Bush’s judicial appointees was 166 days, for Clinton it was 117 days) is because this guy’s rulings…well, I’ll let S.E. Cupp explain:
For one, he sought to bar prayers that mention Jesus Christ at the opening of each daily session of the Indiana House of Representatives, claiming people do not have a First Amendment right to use an official platform to express their own religious faith. But – and here’s where it gets good – praying in the name of Allah was perfectly fine.
“If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic ‘Allah,’” or any other non-English word for God besides “Jesus Christ,” “the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others.”
Right. Because “Allah” isn’t associated with any particular religion, right? It gets worse:
…in 2001 he decided that requiring women to get information from their doctors about the medical risks of abortions at least 18 hours before the procedure placed an undue burden on women’s rights to get an abortion, and quickly. As we all know, information is the real culprit behind the rise in unwanted pregnancies, so we can all understand Judge Hamilton’s rationale behind trying to make it some kind of illegal contraband. This ruling, too, was reversed by the appeals court, which, in a bizarre twist, found that informing women before surgery was “reasonable, sensible and lawful.” Those kooky appeals judges…
And just last year, Hamilton struck down a provision that would have allowed law enforcement officials to search suspicious sex offenders’ computers if they’d already served time for, well, being sex offenders. As the former leader of the Indiana chapter of the ACLU, I guess it’s no surprise that Judge Hamilton has a soft spot for violent criminals.
I actually opposed the legislation that would have required sex offenders to submit their online passwords to law enforcement so that their internet activities could be monitored and scrutinized, but I did so on the basis that such a law would a) suck up vast amounts of law enforcement resources that b) could be better spent keeping these idiots in jail. After all, if someone is so dangerous they can’t even be trusted with an unmonitored Facebook account what in the world are they doing out of jail?
But Hamilton’s decision based on the privacy of the sex offenders is just plain absurd.
Oh, and did I mention that this guy is an ACORN fund raiser?
When the Democrats and Obama were put into office in 2006 and 2008 respectively they promised open, honest and transparent government. Does attempting to fast-track through the Senate a far-left, uber-liberal federal judge with troubling ties to vote fraud groups like ACORN in order to avoid public/Republican scrutiny and criticism sound like open, honest and transparent leadership?
Of course not. But then again, those were just things Obama and his Democrats said to get elected. You didn’t expect them to live up to them, did you?
