Indeed it is. Of all the candidates, Hardiman has the worst record on immigration. He fancies himself as something of an "honorary amigo", having worked pro bono for border jumpers.
And Hardiman was a friend and huge favorite of Arlen "Scottish Law" Specter. He is very weak on immigration and referred to illegal aliens as persons "Hispanic persons who haven't been inspected yet".
It was Hardiman who said he worked with Spanish-speaking clients pro bono. At his 2003 confirmation hearing to Pennsylvania federal court, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced him as having done political asylum, domestic violence, and employment cases for indigent Spanish-speaking immigrants. During testimony, Hardiman discussed winning political asylum for an El Salvadorian client, and representing a Colombian woman threatened by cocaine cartels. — Law & Crime
I wouldn’t be too quick to jump to conclude that experience in this area is a bad thing. When you’ve seen genuine cases, the not-genuine ones are quite identifiable.
Leonard Leo, a Federalist Society executive vice president advising Trump on nominees, had this to say about the judge: “Tom Hardiman is an interesting mix of two worlds,” he said in January 2017, according to CNN. “On the one hand he is very much in the mold of Justice Scalia, well-schooled on the doctrines of originalism and textualism, and he is very experienced. And yet, at the same time, Judge Hardiman hails from a family of relatively modest means, from an industrial working class city in Western Pennsylvania.”
And, as long as they were legal immigrants he was doing pro bono work for, who cares?
This is such CRAP!
Why are you FALSELY trashing Hardiman?
“On Sunday, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter took a shot at Third Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman, and accused him of being “subsidized” by liberal philanthropist George Soros.”
“In the link provided by Coulter, the Open Society Foundations is listed as one of the $10,000-$25,000 donors. This organization was founded by Soros. Ayuda Communications Coordinator Laura Trask told Law&Crime in a phone interview that the group gave $30,000 since 2009, usually providing matching gifts, and she noted that the donor list should be updated.
With that in mind, it wouldn’t even qualify as one of Ayuda’s most important donors. And certainly doesn’t mean Hardiman is “subsidized” by Soros. Verizon, for example, is listed in the $25,000-$50,000 slot. Others provided way more. The District of Columbia Government is listed as giving between $500,000 and $1 million, while the Department of Justice is noted as giving at least $2 million. (The group includes grant-givers in their donor list.)
There seems to be no available information to show that Soros played a role in elevating Hardiman, a George W. Bush nominee, to the federal bench in the first place.”
He did pro bono work for poor people. GOOD FOR HIM! Soros was a minor donor to this same charity as were THOUSANDS of others.
This is a BOGUS connection to Soros. This is NO CONNECTION AT ALL to Soros. It’s BULLSHIRT!
AYUDA is a U.S. 501(c)(3) charitable organization.
Hardiman donated his time/services to a charitable organization. THAT’S IT!