Page 1 of 1

Maybe Not The Most Qualified Judicial Nominee...

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:10 am
by Lord Jim
A Trump Judicial Nominee Couldn't Answer Basic Questions About The Law

It has not been a pretty week for President Trump’s judicial nominees. On Wednesday, two were removed from consideration before the Senate due to past scandalous remarks. (One of them, Jeff Mateer of Texas, once said that transgender children were part of “Satan’s plans;” another, Alabama’s Brett Talley, was discovered to have blogged in support of the Ku Klux Klan.) :roll:

And late Thursday night, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, posted a video to Twitter that’s now going viral. It’s footage of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing earlier this week, in which one lawmaker — a Republican, no less — grills a nominee over basic points of legal doctrine, only for the nominee to confess blusteringly that he doesn’t know the answers.



“You can just raise your hand on this one, to save a little time,” Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, says in the video. “Have any of you not tried a case to verdict in a courtroom?”

One of the five nominees before the committee, the lawyer Matthew S. Petersen, raised his hand.

“Have you ever tried a jury trial?” Kennedy asked.

“No.”

Kennedy then asked him if he’d ever tried civil, criminal, or bench trials, or trials in either state or federal court; Petersen confirmed that he had not. Kennedy then moved on to ask him for definitions of certain legal tenets, with no more success.

“Do you know what a motion in limine is?” Kennedy asked.

Petersen’s answer was meandering and somewhat evasive. “I appreciate this line of questioning . . . but I believe that the path I have taken to be in a decision-making role on, I guess, somewhere between 1,500 to 2,000 enforcement matters, overseeing I don’t know how many cases in federal court…”

“Yessir, I’ve read your resume,” Kennedy responded. “Just for the record, do you know what a motion in limine is?”

“I would probably not be able to give you a good definition right here at the table,” Petersen answered.

The video posted by Whitehouse (“Hoo-boy,” the senator commented in his tweet) has proven to be catnip for Democrats, who have lambasted Trump’s judicial nominees and tried to keep them off the bench. It has been an uphill battle.

As the Huffington Post noted Thursday, Trump has so far successfully appointed 12 judges to the nation’s circuit courts — more than any other President in his first year in office since the courts were established 126 years ago. These judges are largely conservative, as is Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, whose appointment to the Supreme Court in April is considered one of Trump’s biggest accomplishments to date.

The votes in the Senate to confirm these judges have fallen along party lines — Democrats have coalesced to largely vote “no” every time — but as Whitehouse’s video shows, not every Republican can be swayed.

Kennedy is a freshman senator from Louisiana who is regarded among the congressional press corps as a reliable source for a colorful quote (he described the Las Vegas shooter as a “perverted idiot” and said he’d have to be “drunk” to vote for tax hikes), and while his voting record is conservative, his questioning earlier this week is one more piece of evidence that GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill aren’t going to line up behind Trump on every issue.
http://time.com/5065914/matthew-peterso ... judiciary/

The video of Kennedy's questioning is only about five minutes long and it's definitely worth watching if you haven't seen it...It's absolutely hilarious...

It reminds me of the Monty Python Cheese Shop Routine...

Re: Maybe Not The Most Qualified Judicial Nominee...

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:00 am
by Joe Guy
Well, he does have as much experience as Trump has for his current position. That oughtta count fer sumpthin...

Re: Maybe Not The Most Qualified Judicial Nominee...

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:43 am
by ex-khobar Andy
As the Huffington Post noted Thursday, Trump has so far successfully appointed 12 judges to the nation’s circuit courts — more than any other President in his first year in office since the courts were established 126 years ago. These judges are largely conservative, as is Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, whose appointment to the Supreme Court in April is considered one of Trump’s biggest accomplishments to date.
This will of course be taken as evidence of Trump's hard work in getting things done. It's due to the huge number of vacancies, because the Republican-controlled Senate did not fill Obama-nominated judgeships (not just Garland) in the last couple of years of Obama's term.

Re: Maybe Not The Most Qualified Judicial Nominee...

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:55 am
by MajGenl.Meade
Lord Jim wrote:It reminds me of the Monty Python Cheese Shop Routine...
The entire administration does that, no?

Re: Maybe Not The Most Qualified Judicial Nominee...

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:31 pm
by Guinevere
Nominees who don’t have a clue about the law are a direct attack on the rule of law. It’s terrifying and one if the most compelling reasons to get rid of the Trumpanzee and his minions as soon as possible.

Re: Maybe Not The Most Qualified Judicial Nominee...

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:26 pm
by Burning Petard
Are there any hints as to why this guy was nominated at all to a lifetime position? Does his father-in-law know somebody? Were they afraid he could not cut it in a real job?

snailgate

Re: Maybe Not The Most Qualified Judicial Nominee...

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:00 pm
by Sue U
Guinevere wrote:Nominees who don’t have a clue about the law are a direct attack on the rule of law. It’s terrifying and one if the most compelling reasons to get rid of the Trumpanzee and his minions as soon as possible.
Worse than that, the nominees have obviously not been selected for their judicial skills or temperament, but solely for their political orientation. This is a blatant effort to politicize the federal judiciary and make it an extension of the executive, if not the GOP party apparatus itself. I certainly understand that there can be different approaches to judicial philosophy, but these guys have no philosophy other than political party. The overwhelming majority of federal court cases have nothing to do with partisan issues and even if they did, a judge's job -- particularly in the trial court -- is to be impartial in conducting the proceedings. So it's kind of important to have some idea of how a court actually works, because procedure and evidence can be pretty complex. But appointing party hacks to an independent and co-equal branch of government fundamentally undermines the institution itself, making it just another political prize to be won and wielded in service of party over country. Some people see judicial service as something more honorable than that, but this Administration clearly doesn't.

Re: Maybe Not The Most Qualified Judicial Nominee...

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:22 pm
by Crackpot
You just created a mini paradox by using honor and “this administration” in the same sentence.

Re: Maybe Not The Most Qualified Judicial Nominee...

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:06 pm
by ex-khobar Andy
But appointing party hacks to an independent and co-equal branch of government fundamentally undermines the institution itself, making it just another political prize to be won and wielded in service of party over country.
An excellent point, Sue - while most of us are laughing at the likes of Spicer and this guy, Trump and his cronies are successfully dismantling a great experiment in liberal democracy.

Benjamin Franklin was right. When asked what the Constitutional Convention had arrived at, he said: "A republic, if you can keep it." He also said something which is even more relevant today: ". . . nothing is of more importance for the public weal, than to form and train up youth in wisdom and virtue. Wise and good men are in my opinion, the strength of the state; more so than riches or arms.” I would just amend, for today's audience, that word 'men' to 'people.'

Re: Maybe Not The Most Qualified Judicial Nominee...

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:20 pm
by ex-khobar Andy
An excellent opinion piece in The Guardian broadly making the same point.

Re: Maybe Not The Most Qualified Judicial Nominee...

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:43 pm
by Sue U
O hai:

BREAKING: President Donald Trump Loses Third Judge Nominee

By Michael Macagnone

Law360, Washington (December 18, 2017, 2:08 PM EST) -- President Donald Trump has lost a third court nominee this week after D.C. District nominee Matthew Petersen withdrew his nomination, a White House official confirmed Monday.
Probably because he (or his prospects for a judicial appointment, at least) died of shame over the weekend.

Re: Maybe Not The Most Qualified Judicial Nominee...

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:12 pm
by BoSoxGal
I'd almost feel sorry for these guys, but they should've known better than to accept the nomination to begin with.