- 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
re: John Kennedy grills trump federal judge nominee
Posted on 12/15/17 at 5:52 pm to theronswanson
Posted on 12/15/17 at 5:52 pm to theronswanson
quote:
Solicitor General and District Court judge are two different worlds. Arguably Petersen would be far more qualified to be SG.
You might be confused as to what the solicitor general does. It is he person tasked with representing the US in front of the Supreme Court. Having someone who has never argued in any court is more qualified to do that than be a district judge? I'll bite. Make the argument.
Posted on 12/15/17 at 5:58 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Can you imagine the look on the hypothetical law clerk’s face when the Article III judge asks him/her “what exactly is a motion in limine?”
Even better when he pronounces it with two syllables rather than 3.
I am sure there are several other attorneys in this thread and I am sure we have all been in court rooms with judges just like this, Federal, State and Local.
I will say this though, I do think a judge can be very good and become great without ever trying a case. Just like a referee can be very good at his job without ever playing the sport. That said those individuals are extremely rare and this guy does not seem to be one of them no matter how strong his CV is otherwise.
ETA I don't like Kennedy ever since he said my dog was getting undeserved handouts... he really did Mudflap gets called out for being a poor Every time I show her the commercial she give me the "he can GF himself" look. Then I remind her how she was up in Petsmart making it rain all that actor money she got and she seems fine with it.
This post was edited on 12/15/17 at 6:05 pm
Posted on 12/15/17 at 6:06 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
It's insane that someone with so little real world experience in actual legal practice would be put up for the bench. Never tried a jury or bench trial, or even so much as argued a motion in any court (basically he's never SET FOOT in a courtroom as a lawyer). Never taken a deposition by himself, and only been involved in about 5 total.
I wonder who on the President's staff recommended him?
Posted on 12/15/17 at 6:49 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You might be confused as to what the solicitor general does. It is he person tasked with representing the US in front of the Supreme Court. Having someone who has never argued in any court is more qualified to do that than be a district judge? I'll bite. Make the argument
No confusion. The SG's office performs a role more akin to moot court in law school. The issues are narrow, though widely significant, by the time they have reached the Supreme Court. The supreme court doesn't deal with MILs so I do not really hold that against him. He is no doubt very smart and performing that role is much simpler. He can learn the issues and effectively argue in front of the court.
However, a district court judge operates much differently. MILs, Daubert motions, nuanced trial procedure, discovery motions, etc are all things that lawyers spend years understanding and learning. Its a craft. Someone going to the bench on day one not knowing what those are can really make very poor decisions that can have a cascading effect throughout the docket. Moreover, he will be handing out sentences and handling high profile issues. The public and the bar needs to know that someone qualified, even if you disagree with them, is making those decisions.
Popular
Back to top

1





