On Hamilton’s Indiana Prayer Ruling
Obama announced his first judicial nomination today: David Hamilton to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. David Brody was quick to report the nomination and suggest that it could “trigger a serious ideological fight” based largely on the fact that “Judge Hamilton was at the center of a controversy in 2005 when he ruled that the Indiana House of Representatives was not allowed to include prayers that included the name of Jesus.”
Before the ideological fight begins, let’s take a deep breath and take the time to look at the ruling in question (Anthony Hinrichs et al. vs. Speaker), and its context.
Hamilton ruled in this case that official prayers in the Indiana legislature that were sectarian – not just Christian, but any prayer limited to a specific faith tradition – violated the establishment clause of the US constitution. Anyone wishing to offer a sectarian prayer in a private or non-governmental setting has the right to do so, but in this context, because the lawmaker or chaplain offering the prayer would be doing so in a government-funded position, to a governmental body, Hamilton ruled that he or she is not speaking as an ordinary citizen, but rather is speaking on behalf of the government. Hamilton’s ruling did not invalidate prayer in the legislative arena, however. He upheld the House’s ability to offer a prayer so long as it is not religiously exclusive. Judge Hamilton wrote:
When the Founders of this Nation set the boundaries on the power of government, the first words they wrote in the Bill of Rights were “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .” The Founders recognized that we are a people of many strong and vigorous faiths. They acted to protect the liberty to practice those faiths. The Founders also knew centuries of history in which religious conflicts had caused war and oppression. They recognized that even the best intentions of people of faith can lead to division, exclusion, and worse. And they recognized that a majority who sees its faith as true and benign can be tempted in a democratic republic to try to use the power and prestige of government to advance that faith in ways that would actually divide and exclude. … 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.
The ruling found that the prayers offered at the state House consistently advanced Christian beliefs: “[T]he evidence shows that the official prayers offered to open sessions of the Indiana House of Representatives repeatedly and consistently advance the beliefs that define the Christian religion: the resurrection and divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.” (The invocation that prompted the lawsuit was a sing-a-long to the gospel song, “Just a Little Talk With Jesus.” )
Of 53 prayers, nine were delivered by lawmakers and 41 by clergy identified with Christian churches. A Muslim imam and a Jewish rabbi each gave one prayer. A majority mentioned Christ.
While some in the religious community opposed Hamilton’s ruling, others supported it. Dozens of faith leaders signed a statement opposing sectarian prayers in the Indiana House. A local United Methodist pastor who helped organize the statement said:
The speaker’s podium is not a pulpit. The reason so many religious traditions flourish in this state and in America is precisely because we do not elevate one faith over another. Religious leaders who are uncomfortable with that principle — and I understand that will be the case — may still pray for our government leaders in their particular way, with their particular language, but in religious settings and not in the state’s chambers…. When I’m invited to a mosque or synagogue, I don’t expect the imam or rabbi to change his or her prayers because I’m present. Nor has any Jew or Muslim asked me to exclude Jesus from my prayers in our church. The House, however, represents all of Indiana. I’ve heard some dissenters say that praying a nonsectarian prayer is like praying to no one at all. I think God is probably far more interested in our sincerity than in our salutation
The legal community also stood behind Hamilton’s decision. The Indiana Lawyer wrote in an editorial:
We’re not against prayer. We want to be upfront about that. We are against arrogant elected officials, some of them lawyers, who appear to be more concerned about demonstrating how deeply religious they are instead of how their bombastic ceremony negatively impacts others.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Hamilton’s ruling two years later. “But the decision didn’t center on whether the prayers should be allowed,” the Indianapolis Star reported, “In its 2-1 opinion, the court ruled there were no expenditures directly tied to the prayers. Therefore, as taxpayers, the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.”
It’s worth noting that Hamilton is the son and grandson of United Methodist ministers.
David Brody clarifies this morning that Hamilton’s decision in this case was not overturned on it’s merits, but due a determination that the plaintiffs lacked standing: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/561590.aspx
On that note, The Brody File should clarify a post from yesterday. While Judge Hamilton’s decision on prayer was overturned it was not done so because of Judge Hamilton’s opinion. It was due to a technicality because it was found that the plaintiffs did not have proper standing.
The nugget from the LA Times report on Hamilton — that the president of the local Federalist Society supports Hamilton — is also notable: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-judge18-2009mar18,0,3103312.story
Although Obama’s first nominee may not end Washington’s war over judges, Hamilton drew wide praise from lawyers and law professors in Indiana, including the president of the local Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.
“I regard Judge Hamilton as an excellent jurist with a first-rate intellect,” said Geoffrey Slaughter, a lawyer in Indianapolis. “He is unfailingly polite to lawyers. He asks tough questions to both sides, and he is very smart. His judicial philosophy is left of center, but well within the mainstream, between the 30-yard lines.”
The Federalist Society invited Hamilton to speak at its January meeting in Indianapolis, Slaughter said. In praising the judge, Slaughter said he spoke only for himself, not for the organization.
Moderate? This Judge has in this 2005 decision, failed to consider the free speech of all individuals, and freedom of religion that is guaranteed by the constitution of this country, ant the fact that Decisions by the judiciary are supposed to be based on precedent not personal belief, and he obviously does not know the history of this nation or it’s founding. We have allowed the Judiciary to become the law makers rather than Congress & confirmation by the senate. There was a reason that they were given limited power and we have allowed them unlimited power! BIG MISTAKE and we will be suffering consequences for it for generations if this country survives them that long.