Trump judicial nominee stumped on basic law questions at Senate hearing
14 replies, posted
[quote]Senator John Kennedy, a Republican, began his line of questioning to the five candidates present for the hearing by asking if any had not “tried a case to verdict”, to which Petersen raised his hand. Kennedy, a trained lawyer, zeroed in for a rapid fire line of questioning on some key legal principles that turn up in federal court cases:
“Do you know what a motion in limine is?” Kennedy asked.
“I would probably not be able to give you a good definition,” Petersen responded.
“Do you know what the Younger abstention doctrine is?” Kennedy continued.
“I’ve heard of it, but again,” Petersen responded, trailing off.
To non-lawyers, the exchange might have sounded like a succession of “gotcha” questions, esoteric queries intended to make the candidate appear unqualified. But the principles in question are in fact, foundational, essential knowledge for the job that Petersen is trying to be confirmed to perform.
A motion in limine, for example, is a request by counsel, outside the presence of a jury, to exclude evidence which a party feels is too prejudicial to even be mentioned in open court. They are a routine, nearly ubiquitous feature in almost any trial setting.
Recognizing that things were not going particularly well for himself, Petersen tried to explain his inability to answer with the fact that he’s taken a different path than the one “many successful district court judges” have taken.
“I understand the challenge that would be ahead of me if I were fortunate enough to be named a district court judge,” he said to an unimpressed looking Senator Kennedy.[/quote]
[url]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/15/trump-judicial-nominee-stumped-on-basic-law-questions-at-senate-hearing[/url]
:suicide:
Sounds like he's overqualified tbh, we need more good men like him!
I watched this yesterday and had to force myself to sit through it. I wanted to turn it off so many times. He didn't know a damn thing and he's being legitimately considered. People in the Reddit comments were saying that some of those terms were first-year law school and yet this guy just goes on a MAGA tangent to burn time.
I learned what a motion in limine is literally 2 weeks into law school.
Hell, put on a good suit and dance around questions well enough & this administration will nominate you for pretty much anything huh
I had a coworker argue these kind of guys are exactly what we need because they balance our system.
[QUOTE=Sableye;52983837]I had a coworker argue these kind of guys are exactly what we need because they balance our system.[/QUOTE]
What do they balance against?
[QUOTE=ToumaniSquirrel;52983902]What do they balance against?[/QUOTE]
They balance against conservatives' fear of educated, qualified professionals and competent government.
[QUOTE=ToumaniSquirrel;52983902]What do they balance against?[/QUOTE]
Can't have government functioning [I]too[/I] well now
At least there seems to be one Republican who doesn't believe that he is qualified. Though we may end up with another 50 50 vote.
And here I thought that all this talk of people claiming I was "over-qualified" for certain jobs because they'd rather hire a dumb-ass who has no idea what he's doing so they can mold them into whatever they want was all some crazy nonsense...
[QUOTE=ToumaniSquirrel;52983902]What do they balance against?[/QUOTE]
They balance concerns that an uneducated yokel like themselves might not one day get a cushy job despite no qualifications, ensuring themselves a nice paycheck thanks to a powerful, corrupt acquaintance.
[QUOTE=d00msdaydan;52983909]Can't have government functioning [I]too[/I] well now[/QUOTE]
Yeah. If government functioned well, conservatives couldn't claim that "big" government was the source of all the problems of the country!
