Obama Nominates First Judge in Remaking of Federal Judiciary

[Archangel]

Obama Nominates First Judge in Remaking of Federal Judiciary

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:58 AM


WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Tuesday nominated U.S. District
Judge David Hamilton, a moderate, to serve on a midwestern federal
appeals court as the administration begins to remake the federal judiciary.
The White House said Hamilton, from Indiana, will serve on the 7th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals covering his state, Illinois and Wisconsin.
Hamilton served as counsel to Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh when he was
governor. He is a federal judge in Indianapolis.
A senior administration official, who would only speak on condition of
anonymity to discuss the nomination, said Indiana's Republican senator,
Richard Lugar, told the White House he supports Hamilton.
The official said Obama is looking for nominees who will overcome
partisan Senate acrimony of the past. Some nominees have bitterly
divided the Senate, no matter which party was in the majority or
controlled the White House.
The administration also is looking at candidates for any future Supreme
Court vacancy, but the official described that search simply an effort
to be prepared.
There are 11 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals that cover specific regions,
and the circuit for the District of Columbia. There currently are 15
vacancies, including the seat to be filled by Hamilton.
Since most cases do not reach the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appellate
decisions often are the final word on legal matters that affect millions
of Americans — from civil liberties and civil rights, to abortion and
challenges to government actions.


CHANGE YOU CAN COUNT ON!!

ARCHANGEL

[f.barnes]

Post by Archangel
Obama Nominates First Judge in Remaking of Federal Judiciary
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:58 AM
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Tuesday nominated U.S. District
Judge David Hamilton, a moderate, to serve on a midwestern federal
appeals court as the administration begins to remake the federal judiciary.
The White House said Hamilton, from Indiana, will serve on the 7th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals covering his state, Illinois and Wisconsin.
Hamilton served as counsel to Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh when he was
governor. He is a federal judge in Indianapolis.
A senior administration official, who would only speak on condition of
anonymity to discuss the nomination, said Indiana's Republican senator,
Richard Lugar, told the White House he supports Hamilton.
The official said Obama is looking for nominees who will overcome
partisan Senate acrimony of the past. Some nominees have bitterly
divided the Senate, no matter which party was in the majority or
controlled the White House.
The administration also is looking at candidates for any future Supreme
Court vacancy, but the official described that search simply an effort
to be prepared.
There are 11 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals that cover specific regions,
and the circuit for the District of Columbia. There currently are 15
vacancies, including the seat to be filled by Hamilton.
Since most cases do not reach the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appellate
decisions often are the final word on legal matters that affect millions
of Americans — from civil liberties and civil rights, to abortion and
challenges to government actions.
CHANGE YOU CAN COUNT ON!!
ARCHANGEL

All it will take is for one conservative to be replaced by one liberal
on the U.S. Supreme Court and then the recent 5-4 ruling on the 2nd
amendment can be revisited and reversed, ruling that gun ownership is
not an individual right. And that's when the SHTF.

[Lars Eighner]

In our last episode,

Post by f.barnes
All it will take is for one conservative to be replaced by one liberal
on the U.S. Supreme Court and then the recent 5-4 ruling on the 2nd

A bizarre interpretation of plain language that courts had denied since the
inception of the Constitution

Post by f.barnes
amendment can be revisited and reversed, ruling that gun ownership is
not an individual right.

Which can hardly come soon enough.

) And that's when the SHTF.

Then gunloons can go to prison where they belong.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Lars Eighner
In our last episode,

Post by f.barnes
All it will take is for one conservative to be replaced by one liberal
on the U.S. Supreme Court and then the recent 5-4 ruling on the 2nd

A bizarre interpretation of plain language that courts had denied since the
inception of the Constitution

Post by f.barnes
amendment can be revisited and reversed, ruling that gun ownership is
not an individual right.

Which can hardly come soon enough.
)  And that's when the SHTF.
Then gunloons can go to prison where they belong.
--
            56 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
   Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.

I am not a gun nut and I have never owned a gun. However, I
understand the reason for the liberty of the second Amendment.

Two things to consider:

The first and most important is that the biggest problem the French
resistance had during WWII was trying to obtain guns.

The second is related to the phrase, "there are no atheists in fox
holes". Imagine you are one of 10 hostages in a bank robbery that has
gone bad. The criminal claims that he is going to kill one hostage
every hour until his demands are met. He kills the first hostage. Do
you think any one of the hostages is thinking, "I sure hope none of
the other hostages has a gun."?

Jane

[Lars Eighner]

In our last episode,

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Lars Eighner
In our last episode,

Post by f.barnes
All it will take is for one conservative to be replaced by one liberal
on the U.S. Supreme Court and then the recent 5-4 ruling on the 2nd

A bizarre interpretation of plain language that courts had denied since the
inception of the Constitution

Post by f.barnes
amendment can be revisited and reversed, ruling that gun ownership is
not an individual right.

Which can hardly come soon enough.
)  And that's when the SHTF.
Then gunloons can go to prison where they belong.

I am not a gun nut and I have never owned a gun. However, I
understand the reason for the liberty of the second Amendment.

The reason was to ensure that the States could maintain militias.

Post by j***@gmail.com
The first and most important is that the biggest problem the French
resistance had during WWII was trying to obtain guns.

Yet, somehow the Iraqi's needed "liberating" in spite of owning guns.

Post by j***@gmail.com
The second is related to the phrase, "there are no atheists in fox
holes". Imagine you are one of 10 hostages in a bank robbery that has
gone bad. The criminal claims that he is going to kill one hostage
every hour until his demands are met. He kills the first hostage. Do
you think any one of the hostages is thinking, "I sure hope none of
the other hostages has a gun."?

How about if the robber could not get a gun in the first place? We have the
technology to put sensors in every public place. When every gun in private
hands is melted down, the 10 hostages will overpower the robber.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Lars Eighner
In our last episode,

Post by Lars Eighner
In our last episode,

Post by f.barnes
All it will take is for one conservative to be replaced by one liberal
on the U.S. Supreme Court and then the recent 5-4 ruling on the 2nd

A bizarre interpretation of plain language that courts had denied since the
inception of the Constitution

Post by f.barnes
amendment can be revisited and reversed, ruling that gun ownership is
not an individual right.

Which can hardly come soon enough.
)  And that's when the SHTF.
Then gunloons can go to prison where they belong.

I am not  a gun nut and I have never owned a gun.  However, I
understand the reason for the liberty of the second Amendment.

The reason was to ensure that the States could maintain militias.

The first and most important is that the biggest problem the French
resistance had during WWII was trying to obtain guns.

Yet, somehow the Iraqi's needed "liberating" in spite of owning guns.

The second is related to the phrase, "there are no atheists in fox
holes".  Imagine you are one of 10 hostages in a bank robbery that has
gone bad. The criminal claims that he is going to kill one hostage
every hour until his demands are met.  He kills the first hostage.  Do
you think any one of the hostages is thinking, "I sure hope none of
the other hostages has a gun."?

How about if the robber could not get a gun in the first place?  We have the
technology to put sensors in every public place.  When every gun in private
hands is melted down, the 10 hostages will overpower the robber.
--
            56 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
   Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.

You obviously haven't done a lot of studying of the arguments,
discussions and definitions in colonial times.

An aspect of debating is having to study and argue either side of the
debate. Why don't you study as if you were given the task of debating
the citizens right side of debate and see what you can find. My
arguing with you will accomplish absolutely nothing.

Jane

[Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Lars Eighner
In our last episode,

Post by Lars Eighner
In our last episode,

Post by f.barnes
All it will take is for one conservative to be replaced by one liberal
on the U.S. Supreme Court and then the recent 5-4 ruling on the 2nd

A bizarre interpretation of plain language that courts had denied since the
inception of the Constitution

Post by f.barnes
amendment can be revisited and reversed, ruling that gun ownership is
not an individual right.

Which can hardly come soon enough.
)  And that's when the SHTF.
Then gunloons can go to prison where they belong.

I am not  a gun nut and I have never owned a gun.  However, I
understand the reason for the liberty of the second Amendment.

The reason was to ensure that the States could maintain militias.

The first and most important is that the biggest problem the French
resistance had during WWII was trying to obtain guns.

Yet, somehow the Iraqi's needed "liberating" in spite of owning guns.

The second is related to the phrase, "there are no atheists in fox
holes".  Imagine you are one of 10 hostages in a bank robbery that has
gone bad. The criminal claims that he is going to kill one hostage
every hour until his demands are met.  He kills the first hostage.  Do
you think any one of the hostages is thinking, "I sure hope none of
the other hostages has a gun."?

How about if the robber could not get a gun in the first place?  We have the
technology to put sensors in every public place.  When every gun in private
hands is melted down, the 10 hostages will overpower the robber.
--
            56 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
   Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.

You obviously haven't done a lot of studying of the arguments,
discussions and definitions in colonial times.
An aspect of debating is having to study and argue either side of the
debate.  Why don't you study as if you were given the task of debating
the citizens right side of debate and see what you can find.  My
arguing with you will accomplish absolutely nothing.
Jane- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Because the examples you have given to support your "argument" are
just about the dumbest I've ever heard.

You use unusual, erratic circumstances as the norm.

[j***@gmail.com]

On Mar 17, 7:51 pm, "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names"

Post by Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Lars Eighner
In our last episode,

Post by Lars Eighner
In our last episode,

Post by f.barnes
All it will take is for one conservative to be replaced by one liberal
on the U.S. Supreme Court and then the recent 5-4 ruling on the 2nd

A bizarre interpretation of plain language that courts had denied since the
inception of the Constitution

Post by f.barnes
amendment can be revisited and reversed, ruling that gun ownership is
not an individual right.

Which can hardly come soon enough.
)  And that's when the SHTF.
Then gunloons can go to prison where they belong.

I am not  a gun nut and I have never owned a gun.  However, I
understand the reason for the liberty of the second Amendment.

The reason was to ensure that the States could maintain militias.

The first and most important is that the biggest problem the French
resistance had during WWII was trying to obtain guns.

Yet, somehow the Iraqi's needed "liberating" in spite of owning guns.

The second is related to the phrase, "there are no atheists in fox
holes".  Imagine you are one of 10 hostages in a bank robbery that has
gone bad. The criminal claims that he is going to kill one hostage
every hour until his demands are met.  He kills the first hostage.  Do
you think any one of the hostages is thinking, "I sure hope none of
the other hostages has a gun."?

How about if the robber could not get a gun in the first place?  We have the
technology to put sensors in every public place.  When every gun in private
hands is melted down, the 10 hostages will overpower the robber.
--
            56 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
   Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.

You obviously haven't done a lot of studying of the arguments,
discussions and definitions in colonial times.
An aspect of debating is having to study and argue either side of the
debate.  Why don't you study as if you were given the task of debating
the citizens right side of debate and see what you can find.  My
arguing with you will accomplish absolutely nothing.
Jane- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Because the examples you have given to support your "argument" are
just about the dumbest I've ever heard.
You use unusual, erratic circumstances as the norm.

My examples were not meant to prove anything or to support a valid
argument. They were simple scenarios where gun ownership can be
beneficial.

As I suggested, rather than me argue with you, why don't you take the
task of debating against your own position? You could start by doing
a google search on militia. You could also do a google on people who
were involved in the discussions, such as George Mason,Richard Henry
Lee , and Tench Coxe. You could also search on "Debates in Virginia
Convention on Ratification of the Constitution"

Also read "The Federalist Papers" where they talked about a country of
armed citizens.

The only way to learn anything is to study the other side. Sometimes
what you learn will change your mind, sometimes you will gain
knowledge that supports and substantiates your own opinion. But to
ignore the opinions of those who disagree with you is ignorance.

Jane.

[f.barnes]

Post by Lars Eighner
In our last episode,

Post by f.barnes
All it will take is for one conservative to be replaced by one liberal
on the U.S. Supreme Court and then the recent 5-4 ruling on the 2nd

A bizarre interpretation of plain language that courts had denied since the
inception of the Constitution

Post by f.barnes
amendment can be revisited and reversed, ruling that gun ownership is
not an individual right.

Which can hardly come soon enough.
)  And that's when the SHTF.
Then gunloons can go to prison where they belong.

If the 2nd amendment goes then the 1st will not be far behind, and we
will no longer have freedom of speech just like in Europe and almost
all the rest of the world. But I don't think that Obama and other gun
control loons really understand just how frightened of the government
and how angry, whether with good reason or not, rural people and other
gun owners would become if they lost their gun rights. And it would
not be just a matter of a few people going to jail. THE SHIT WOULD
HIT THE FAN! Just imagine how angry liberals would be if a
conservative court revisited Roe v. Wade, reversed it, and made all
abortions illegal, then multiply that anger by 100 or 1000. That's
what you'd have.

Post by Lars Eighner
--
            56 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
   Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.

[Lars Eighner]

In our last episode,

Post by f.barnes

Post by Lars Eighner
In our last episode,

Post by f.barnes
All it will take is for one conservative to be replaced by one liberal
on the U.S. Supreme Court and then the recent 5-4 ruling on the 2nd

A bizarre interpretation of plain language that courts had denied since the
inception of the Constitution

Post by f.barnes
amendment can be revisited and reversed, ruling that gun ownership is
not an individual right.

Which can hardly come soon enough.
)  And that's when the SHTF.
Then gunloons can go to prison where they belong.

If the 2nd amendment goes

You mean, goes back to what it was when it was written and was interpreted
for more than 200 years.

Post by f.barnes
then the 1st will not be far behind,

Curious. That did not happen.

Post by f.barnes
and we will no longer have freedom of speech just like in Europe and
almost all the rest of the world. But I don't think that Obama and other
gun control loons really understand just how frightened of the government
and how angry, whether with good reason or not, rural people and other gun
owners would become if they lost their gun rights.

Of course protecting the nation from these nuts will continue to be
necessary, and nipping this new-found "right" in the bud will be easier than
letting it go on.

[Ashley22]

Post by Archangel
Obama Nominates First Judge in Remaking of Federal Judiciary
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:58 AM
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Tuesday nominated U.S. District
Judge David Hamilton, a moderate, to serve on a midwestern federal
appeals court as the administration begins to remake the federal judiciary.
The White House said Hamilton, from Indiana, will serve on the 7th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals covering his state, Illinois and Wisconsin.
Hamilton served as counsel to Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh when he was
governor. He is a federal judge in Indianapolis.
A senior administration official, who would only speak on condition of
anonymity to discuss the nomination, said Indiana's Republican senator,
Richard Lugar, told the White House he supports Hamilton.
The official said Obama is looking for nominees who will overcome
partisan Senate acrimony of the past. Some nominees have bitterly
divided the Senate, no matter which party was in the majority or
controlled the White House.
The administration also is looking at candidates for any future Supreme
Court vacancy, but the official described that search simply an effort
to be prepared.
There are 11 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals that cover specific regions,
and the circuit for the District of Columbia. There currently are 15
vacancies, including the seat to be filled by Hamilton.
Since most cases do not reach the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appellate
decisions often are the final word on legal matters that affect millions
of Americans — from civil liberties and civil rights, to abortion and
challenges to government actions.
CHANGE YOU CAN COUNT ON!!
ARCHANGEL

He is suppose to be for bipartisism but so was Obama and yet he seems
to be going back on his word to bring back bipartismanship back into
the government by wanting to go around the repubs to get his health
care and energy bills to go thry.Although i don't see it happening the
fact remains that htis is yet another of the many promises that Obama
made and has yet to come thru on