Jump to content


The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread


Recommended Posts

On 3/10/2018 at 1:12 PM, Ric Flair said:

 

No excuse for the one or two clearly unqualified nominees like that guy. But most of Trump’s nominees are eminently qualified. 

 

Quote

The [American Bar Association's] 15-member Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary evaluates would-be judges on three qualifications: integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. Its stated objective is to “assist the White House in assessing whether such individuals should be nominated to the federal judiciary.”

 

Committee members then rank nominees as either “Well Qualified,” “Qualified,” and “Not Qualified.” A nominee is "not qualified" if he or she “does not meet the Committee’s standards with respect to one or more of its evaluation criteria.”

 

Since the Eisenhower administration, the ABA Standing Committee has ranked prospective judicial candidates before they are officially nominated for the position. The presiding administration then nominates candidates deemed qualified by the group. Since President Dwight Eisenhower, only George W. Bush and Trump opted for a different approach—nominating judges regardless of the ABA rating.

 

Quote

The last time the ABA's Standing Committee doled out its lowest ranking before Trump was in 2006 when the Bush administration put forth Michael Wallace for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Wallace was Bush’s seventh and last judicial nominee deemed unqualified by the group.

In the next 10 years, the committee reviewed more than 600 candidates for federal judicial posts, all of whom were deemed qualified for the bench.

 

But that streak was broken in October when the ABA ranked Trump nominee Charles Goodwin unqualified. A month later, three more of Trump’s nominees—Leonard Grasz, Holly Teeter, and Brett Talley—received the same ranking.

 http://www.newsweek.com/trump-nominating-unqualified-judges-left-and-right-710263

(I don't agree with Teeter's disqualification based on experience alone).

 

Peterson, exposed in that video, is not included.

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
  • 5 weeks later...


7 hours ago, Moiraine said:

Is she racist or does she know it's a famous decision she's supposed to know but can't remember what it is?

Either way.. . I mean ignorance is much preferred, but to not know one of, if not the, most important Supreme Court rulings in the 20th century when you are a judicial nominee.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
  • 4 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

1 hour ago, commando said:

maximum effort to not answer a question

 

 

It really is interesting.  I've had the hearings on in the back ground in my office while I work.  There hasn't been a question that the guy hasn't answered very professionally, well prepared, knowledgeable.....etc.....his memory is extremely impressive......until this one.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

It really is interesting.  I've had the hearings on in the back ground in my office while I work.  There hasn't been a question that the guy hasn't answered very professionally, well prepared, knowledgeable.....etc.....his memory is extremely impressive......until this one.

 

There was also the whole line of questioning around whether or not a sitting president must respond to subpoena or could pardon himself of crimes, to which Kavanaugh continually responded "I'm not going to answer hypothetical questions." 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...