• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Donalds choice is barely a lawyer, and not qualified to be a judge

shortylickens

shortylickens

No Lifer
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...t-answer-district-washington-dc-a8111826.html

Matthew Spencer Petersen admitted he was unfamiliar with several common legal terms during questioning by Republican Senator John Kennedy at a hearing earlier this week.

Mr Talley had been described by the American Bar Association as “not qualified” and drew criticism for failing to disclose he was married to a White House lawyer when asked about potential conflicts of interest.
Click to expand...

Which actually makes sense since Donald is clearly looking to fill job openings with the least effective people he can possibly find.
 
This Petersen guy seems disturbingly unqualified.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/15/politics/judicial-nominee-questions-flub/index.html

During his testimony, Matthew Spencer Petersen, who currently serves as a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, was asked a string of questions by GOP Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana about his experience on trials, including how many depositions Petersen had worked on--the answer was less than five -- and the last time he had read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- he said he couldn't remember.

Petersen is up for a seat on the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

During the hearing, Petersen had to acquiesce on many occasions that his "background was not in litigation," despite the role he was up for. He added, "I understand the challenge that would be ahead of me if I were fortunate enough to become a district court judge."
Click to expand...
 
HomerJS said:
Trump supporters say is is qualified and anything to the contrary is a hoax
Click to expand...

I am wondering if there is anyone here bold enough to state that they think he is qualified for the position.

Being a judge not only requires knowledge of the rules and operations of a courtroom and other legal proceedings, motions, etc., but it also requires knowledge of (and willingness to seek) an enormous background of cases which establishes the framework for which these things should be decided. It is not simply enough to know the text of the law. Acting on these things without this framework (largely understood through experience) in a higher court could be catastrophic. Even if rulings appear to be reasonable, unknowingly conflicting with well established case law has the potential to undermine a great number of cases far outside his courtroom.
 
This morning in my office I sat with several other attorneys, paralegals and support staff and watched the 5 minute clip of Peterson being questioned by Kennedy. We howled when he said he didn't know what a motion in limine was, that he never argued any motion, and never took a deposition on his own. How is this guy remotely qualified to be on the bench? My qualifications vastly exceed his. Damn, is this all it takes to be on the federal bench these days? Sign me up. The pay and benefits are pretty decent.
 
Whachoo speck? Trump is barely a human being...and certainly isn't qualified to be President...why would you think he'd pick people with better qualifications than himself?
I know that one of the first rules of management is to surround yourself with smart people...often people who are smarter than you...but in Trump's case, the people in the "I can count to Potato" memes are smarter than he is.
 
interchange said:
I am wondering if there is anyone here bold enough to state that they think he is qualified for the position.

Being a judge not only requires knowledge of the rules and operations of a courtroom and other legal proceedings, motions, etc., but it also requires knowledge of (and willingness to seek) an enormous background of cases which establishes the framework for which these things should be decided. It is not simply enough to know the text of the law. Acting on these things without this framework (largely understood through experience) in a higher court could be catastrophic. Even if rulings appear to be reasonable, unknowingly conflicting with well established case law has the potential to undermine a great number of cases far outside his courtroom.
Click to expand...

Please. The questions were silly, and the guy mispronounced limine. This is just anti trump pettiness. Nothing seen in the video should disqualify him from consideration, nor invite such ignorant scorn. Reading the federal rules of civil procedure? What, like, for fun? In preparation for being asked dumb questions?

The guy answers that he hasn't ever argued any motions, so naturally a fair-minded chair would proceed to go through all of the venues individually to invite a negative response multiple times. Have you ever consumed alcohol? No. Wine? No. Beer? No. Light beer? No. Makes sense. Seems objective.
 
justoh said:
Please. The questions were silly, and the guy mispronounced limine. This is just anti trump pettiness. Nothing seen in the video should disqualify him from consideration, nor invite such ignorant scorn. Reading the federal rules of civil procedure? What, like, for fun? In preparation for being asked dumb questions?

The guy answers that he hasn't ever argued any motions, so naturally a fair-minded chair would proceed to go through all of the venues individually to invite a negative response multiple times. Have you ever consumed alcohol? No. Wine? No. Beer? No. Light beer? No. Makes sense. Seems objective.
Click to expand...

Let's forget the questions and the testimony. Are you going to attest that you believe he is qualified to be a federal judge?
 
Looks Like Petersen went to Trump University. You all know Trump U? It's where you can get your bigly degrees.

Wanna be a lawyer? Come down to Trump U. At Trump University, you too can be bigly.
 
justoh said:
Please. The questions were silly, and the guy mispronounced limine. This is just anti trump pettiness. Nothing seen in the video should disqualify him from consideration, nor invite such ignorant scorn. Reading the federal rules of civil procedure? What, like, for fun? In preparation for being asked dumb questions?

The guy answers that he hasn't ever argued any motions, so naturally a fair-minded chair would proceed to go through all of the venues individually to invite a negative response multiple times. Have you ever consumed alcohol? No. Wine? No. Beer? No. Light beer? No. Makes sense. Seems objective.
Click to expand...
He couldn’t answer very basic questions that in legal terms amounted to can you tell me what number comes after four.

Let’s look at it another way. In 8 years not one person that Obama nominated was deemed unqualified by the ABA. In 8 years 3 or 4 of Bush appointees were deemed unqualified. Trump has now nominated 7 in 11 months that hold that distinction.

This guy isn’t qualified and he should be withdrawn.
 
Mai72 said:
Looks Like Petersen went to Trump University. You all know Trump U? It's where you can get your bigly degrees.

Wanna be a lawyer? Come down to Trump U. At Trump University, you too can be bigly.
Click to expand...
By all accounts he’s a bright guy and good at what he does. That doesn’t make him fit for the federal judiciary. Countless lawyers never see a courtroom but they are good at what they do. Doesn’t mean they are qualified as a trial judge by default.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top