- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:49 am to CorporateTiger
it's a tossup. This guy was somehow on Law Review at UVA 
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:50 am to notbilly
quote:
How is this relevant? Obama wasn't nominated for a lifetime appointment to the bench. Having trial experience isn't something needed to be president
It also isn't needed to be a federal judge. If someone isnit a litigator they would not be familiar with abstention doctrines and daubert. The motion in Liminie was something he learned in law school. However, it is silly to call someone who wasn't a litigator dumb because he doesn't know common litigation issues.
If you are making the argument that all federal judges must be former litigators, fine. Calling this guy dumb is silly.
This post was edited on 12/15/17 at 10:52 am
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:50 am to Iosh
I don’t have a video, but again these guys are more picked by senators than the administration.
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:51 am to REG861
Even if every bit of substantive knowledge dribbled out of his brain, any lawyer should be able to BS better than that.
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:51 am to CorporateTiger
That was absolutely brutal.
I understand ego (I think), but how do you even allow yourself to get into that position?
I mean, that dude has absolutely no business allowing himself to be nominated.
I understand ego (I think), but how do you even allow yourself to get into that position?
I mean, that dude has absolutely no business allowing himself to be nominated.
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:52 am to REG861
quote:With a few exceptions the top law schools teach way too much theory and not enough practice. I'm sure this guy can put together a great brief on whatever it is he does (admin law I assume) if you gave him time to research. But to keep the trains running on time in federal court judges need to be able to answer things like this on the spot.
This guy was somehow on Law Review at UVA
This post was edited on 12/15/17 at 10:53 am
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:52 am to BBONDS25
quote:
t also isn't needed to be a federal judge.
I mean you probably don’t need 20 years doing pure litigation, but trial experience and knowledge of the concepts is pretty critical to the job.
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:52 am to Y.A. Tittle
How can you nominate someone that never tried a case in court? Went to less than 5 depositions and never by himself?
I get bad nominations happen but that’s freaking awful.
I get bad nominations happen but that’s freaking awful.
This post was edited on 12/15/17 at 10:54 am
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:53 am to Bison
that was hilarious to watch, a joy really
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:54 am to Bison
Good for Kennedy. These judgeships are lifetime appointments. Once you get somebody unqualified on the bench they can do a lot of damage for a long time.
This post was edited on 12/15/17 at 11:04 am
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:56 am to TimeOutdoors
quote:
This guy is completely under qualified to be a federal judge. He has never tried a case at any level
quote:
Wouldn't this be what makes him qualified for the 9th Circuit Court?
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:57 am to CorporateTiger
quote:I think Kennedy's beef specifically is that this hasn't been true of Trump. He seems to be annoyed that Don McGahn is naming people without asking for suggestions and that's why he's actually trying to embarrass them instead of using his committee time to praise them to the skies. LINK
I don’t have a video, but again these guys are more picked by senators than the administration.
quote:
“I first learned about Mr. Duncan’s nomination when I received a phone call, actually a series of phone calls, from Mr. Don McGahn, who is White House counsel. And Mr. McGahn was very firm that Mr. Duncan would be the nominee to the point that he was on the scarce side in one conversation of being polite. I want to give Mr. McGahn full credit, he came back later and apologized, but his firmness he did not relent on.”
Kennedy added that he did not know Duncan well, but Kennedy said he understood Duncan to be pro-life, pro-religious liberty, and a “Washington lawyer.”
“I have received scores of phone calls from experienced, accomplished, whip-smart, pro-life, pro-religious liberty Louisiana lawyers and judges — I got another one yet this morning — who have asked me why I would support a Washington lawyer for this seat over them,” Kennedy said Wednesday. “One of those applicants asked me directly, ‘What am I, chopped liver?’ So, I’ve got to answer that question, and that’s what I’m hoping Kyle can help me with today.”
This post was edited on 12/15/17 at 10:58 am
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:58 am to Iosh
That would explain why an R is going after them so hard.
Posted on 12/15/17 at 11:03 am to TigerDoc
Prior to being named solicitor general in 2009, Elena Kahan had never argued a case before any court. One year later she was nominated to the Supreme Court. Wonder why the liberals didn't flip out about that.
This post was edited on 12/15/17 at 11:06 am
Posted on 12/15/17 at 11:04 am to Iosh
Apparently one nominee (whose nomination has since been withdrawn) once stated transgender children are a part of Satan’s plan, so Kennedy has been asking every nominee if they’ve ever referred to a child as part of Satan’s plan
I think I like this guy.
I think I like this guy.
Posted on 12/15/17 at 11:06 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Prior to being named solicitor general Iin 2009, Elena Kahan had never argued a case before any court. One year later she was nominated to the Supreme Court. Wonder why the liberals didn't flip out about that.
I suppose you have an answer to that.
Posted on 12/15/17 at 11:06 am to Prince_Hakeem
quote:
How can you nominate someone that never tried a case in court?
I don't think that is necessarily a disqualifying thing, so long as your other credentials are impeccable.
Posted on 12/15/17 at 11:07 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Prior to being named solicitor general in 2009, Elena Kahan had never argued a case before any court. One year later she was nominated to the Supreme Court. Wonder why the liberals didn't flip out about that.
Just from a practical standpoint, I have less issues with that than someone with no knowledge whatsoever of litigation being placed in a District Court slot.
Posted on 12/15/17 at 11:09 am to Y.A. Tittle
Yep. This guy's court would be a cluster frick of continuances.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News