It Begins
April 21, 2009, 9:47 am
Filed under: Ian | Tags: , , ,

INHOFENoted global warming denier James Inhofe, who once insisted that the United States base its foreign policy on the book of Genesis, announced on the Senate floor yesterday that he will filibuster the nomination of Judge David Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit.  Judge Hamilton, a highly regarded district judge whose nomination received enthusiastic support from Hamilton’s homestate Republican Senator Richard Lugar, is President Obama’s first nominee to the federal bench.

Inhofe says he will filibuster Judge Hamilton because Hamilton’s enforcement of the Establishment Clause offends Inhofe’s fundamentalist beliefs:

Many remember David Hamilton because of his 2005 decision as a Federal district court judge presiding over the case Hinrichs v. Bosmah, in which he enjoined the Speaker of Indiana’s House of Representatives from permitting “sectarian” prayers to be offered as part of that body’s official proceedings, meaning that the chaplain or whomever opened the proceedings with prayer could not invoke the name of Jesus Christ. In his conclusion, Hamilton wrote: “If the Speaker chooses to continue any form of legislative prayer, he shall advise persons offering such a prayer (a) that it must be nonsectarian and must not be used to proselytize or advance any one faith or belief or to disparage any other faith or belief, and (b) that they should refrain from using Christ’s name or title or any other denominational appeal.” Further, ruling on a postjudgment motion, Hamilton stated that invoking the name of “Allah” would not advance a particular religion or disparage another. So, praying to Allah would be perfectly acceptable.

I imagine we will hear this claim—that Hamilton banned references to Jesus but endorsed references to “Allah”—a lot in the future, so let me take a moment to explain why Inhofe doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

In Marsh v. Chambers, the Supreme Court held that legislatures can open their session with a non-sectarian prayer, and that such a prayer could invoke “God.”  Marsh, however, also established that such prayers must be entirely non-sectarian, emphasizing that the prayer in that case was permissible because it was not used “to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.”  So non-sectarian statements of reverence to God are kosher, but prayers that offer a uniquely Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Wiccan view are forbidden.  This is the Supreme Court’s rule, and if Jim Inhofe has a problem with it than his beef is with the Justices, not with David Hamiltion.

Hinrichs v. Bosmah, the case that Inhofe cites in attacking Judge Hamilton, was a suit challenging the Indiana House’s practice of routinely bringing in Christian clergy who would offer Christian prayers before the session began, often invoking the name “Jesus.”  Because a lower court judge like Judge Hamilton must follow Supreme Court precedents, Hamilton followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Marsh, and held that the Indiana House must stop opening its sessions with sectarian prayers.

In a post-judgment motion, the Speaker of the Indiana House posed the question of whether or not he could begin the legislative session with a prayer that used the word “Allah,” Hamilton responded as follows:

The Speaker has also asked whether, for example, a Muslim imam may offer a prayer addressed to “Allah.” The Arabic word “Allah” is used for “God” in Arabic translations of Jewish and Christian scriptures. If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic Allah, the Spanish Dios, the German Gott, the French Dieu, the Swedish Gud, the Greek Theos, the Hebrew Elohim, the Italian Dio, or any other language’s terms in addressing the God who is the focus of the non-sectarian prayers contemplated in Marsh v. Chambers, the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others. If and when the prayer practices in the Indiana House of Representatives ever seem to be advancing Islam, an appropriate party can bring the problem to the attention of this or another court.

In other words, Hamilton held that because the Supreme Court held in Marsh that it is ok for a prayer to invoke the word “God,” it is also ok for a legislative prayer to use the Arabic or Spanish or Greek word for God.  Hamilton explicitly did not say that an Islamic prayer could be offered at the opening of a legislative session.  To the contrary, he explicitly warned that if a legislative prayer “ever seem[s] to be advancing Islam” than the courts will treat that “problem” accordingly.

As I’ve argued before, Judge Hamilton is nothing like the right-wing judges Inhofe got used to supporting in during the Bush years.  Unlike George Bush’s judges, David Hamilton does not believe that corporations should have sweeping immunity from the law, and I suspect that this is the real reason why many conservatives are lining up against him.  Conservatives know that they cannot win the case against Hamilton on the merits, so they make up stories about how Judge Hamilton is a secret Muslim.

Fortunately, Senator Lugar’s support of Hamilton all but ensures that Hamilton will be confirmed once Senator-elect Franken arrives to cast the 60th vote for cloture.  Even so, the fact that conservatives are planning to filibuster President Obama’s very first nominee—especially a nominee as distinguished and well-qualified as David Hamilton—suggests that we can expect scorched-earth opposition to virtually all of Obama’s nominees moving forward.


10 Comments so far
Leave a comment

At some point the Republican party will realize that this strategy…the name calling — leninist, fascist, commie, communist,secret Muslim etc. — is a poor one. Being the party of “no” to every single nominee, bill, handshake, disclosure, is the definition of insanity. Sooner or later, the droning sound they continue to emit will fade into the background and if or when they final have something important to say, no one will be listening.

Comment by E Joyce

Once again, Inhofe proves he’s not *this* Oklahoman’s Senator. What an idiot.

Comment by Diane

A fine article on Inhofe & David Hamilton. Thank you. You might want to check your use of the word “than” in places where it should be “then”.

Comment by Douglas Miller

Hate to break up the bingo party, but Inhofe is correct. More importantly, the American people realize he is correct and agree with him.

Comment by Captain Ozone Layer

Hate to break up the bingo party, but Inhofe is correct. More importantly, the American people realize he is correct and agree with him.

What a deeply thought out and well-reasoned comment! No doubt many will be swayed by your comprehensive argument.

Comment by Ian

I assume you did not bother to read and comprehend the actual statement Hamilton made. But then it is indeed possible to be ignore-ant of the truth when it’s right in front of you if you choose.

Comment by E_Joyce

[…] Possibly "yes." ThinkProgress: Yesterday on the Senate floor, Sen. James Inhofe announced that he intended to filibuster Obama’s nomination of U.S. District Judge David Hamilton to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. […]

Pingback by Is Inhofe the stupidest Senator alive? « Later On

[…] a Comment Read the full story at Think Progress Yesterday on the Senate floor, Sen. James Inhofe announced that he intended to filibuster Obama’s nomination of U.S. District Judge David Hamilton to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. […]

Pingback by Inhofe Will Filibuster Judicial Nominee For Ruling Against Sectarian Prayers In Indiana Legislature | Dailycensored.com

You say Inhofe doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Come on- he knows perfectly well what he’s talking about. He’s lying.

Comment by Green Eagle

A non-BRIT, I feel myself uncomfortable with this discussion:
1. Should even in a predominantly Christian secular multi-nation country Christ the Saviour be prayed at the state official arrangements? – No, it is not as the Americans, the citizens of A Land of Free are themselves and represented by believers of different religions, agnostics and even atheists sometimes
2. Should foreign languages be used to conduct the state official arrangements in a country of English the State language? –No, it is not if no foreign dignitaries were invited and an appropriate diplomatic protocol was followed.

A case Hinrichs v. Bosmah is, as a modest observer could understand, about a clause 1 mentioned above and a right decision can’t be underestimated even for pure political reasons.

Comment by Michael Kerjman

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: