Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump Judge Nominee Fails Basic Test of Law Knowledge

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trump Judge Nominee Fails Basic Test of Law Knowledge

    Nice choice for a nominee.
    Aren't there preliminary interviews to be held before such a hearing?
    You can't really blame the man, apart from his poor judgment of accepting to be even nominated.
    The blame really lies with the amateurs who nominated him.

    One of President Trumpís federal judge nominees has withdrawn after he was unable to answer basic questions during his confirmation hearing about the courtroom process, showed little familiarity with federal trial rules and acknowledged that he had never prosecuted or defended a case.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs0z2Ef-aEE

    Let the excuses, trivializing and red herrings begin.
    "For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return"

  • #2
    Peter Principle: promotion to the level of incompetency.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #3
      He had never tried a case, civil or criminal. You would have thought that subject would have been brought up during the vetting process.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Massena View Post
        He had never tried a case, civil or criminal. You would have thought that subject would have been brought up during the vetting process.
        Nothing new really. Many of Obama's candidates were grilled over not so much their qualifications as their very myopically slanted (to the Left) and public political views. Of course, these hearings got little coverage at the time...

        So, it isn't the first time that an incompetent, biased, arrogant, or otherwise unqualified candidate was put forward by a President for a judge position.

        Comment


        • #5
          IIRC, Sotomayor (Obama's selection) was a clerk, not a qualified judge, but she made it.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #6
            The great thing about Trump is every thing he does is heavily scrutinized. The problem with Trump is that the people applying the scrutiny have no self awareness.
            We hunt the hunters

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
              The great thing about Trump is every thing he does is heavily scrutinized. The problem with Trump is that the people applying the scrutiny have no self awareness.
              Exacerbated by a serious reality deficit and low IQ's.
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #8
                Here's one from Obama's administration that was wretched. (and no, I'm not bashing Obama here, I simply am using a recent example from a previous administration because it's easier to get the information).

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin_Liu

                Goodwin Liu was a law professor with no trial experience (he had tried one case) or previous judge appointments. He was also unabashedly public about his belief that it was a duty of a judge to rule from the bench, particularly on Social and Economic Justice matters. That is, he didn't care what the legislative branch had put into law, if it didn't meet his own views on Social and Economic Justice it was his duty to simply rule against the legislature and put the appropriate law in place himself.

                Liu's nomination was withdrawn when it was obvious he'd never get a Senate approval.

                Jerry Brown appointed him to the California Supreme Court later...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  IIRC, Sotomayor (Obama's selection) was a clerk, not a qualified judge, but she made it.
                  Sotomayor had been on the Federal bench since the 1990s. Her most famous case was breaking the deadlock that ended the MLB strike of 1994.
                  I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Personal remark directed at another member through a third party deleted by ACG Staff
                    Last edited by Salinator; 19 Dec 17, 19:34.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                      Sotomayor had been on the Federal bench since the 1990s. Her most famous case was breaking the deadlock that ended the MLB strike of 1994.
                      Perhaps he was thinking of Elena Kagan. While she was dean of Harvard law school, she didnít have judicial experience.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Work_permit View Post
                        Perhaps he was thinking of Elena Kagan. While she was dean of Harvard law school, she didnít have judicial experience.
                        Going on memory here, but didn't she serve as Solicitor General for a spell? Soon after taking her seat on the high bench, she had to recuse herself 'cause she had argued that case before an appeals court.
                        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                          Going on memory here, but didn't she serve as Solicitor General for a spell? Soon after taking her seat on the high bench, she had to recuse herself 'cause she had argued that case before an appeals court.
                          By judicial, I meant time as a judge.

                          There have been other supreme court judges that never served as a judge before. Most famous I can remember is Earl Warren.

                          Cant off the top of my head think of a supreme court judge that never argued a case in court.

                          Comment

                          Latest Topics

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X