Trump judicial nominee can't answer basic litigation questions

Those are all good points. However, I think 99% of the population would like a judge to be pretty well rounded and at least be able to say he or she did just about all tasks you can imagine at least once. Subject area expertise is not such a big deal, but procedural experience is, for most people. JMO

This patronage appointment by Trump is a disgrace.

To me the entire thing signaled a lack of preparedness. He could have answered those questions in a different way, rather than simply “no”.

Q: have you ever tried a jury trial?
A: no, my experience has been in x

Q: do you know what x means?
A: that’s a concept that applies to litigation, which as I just said has not been a part of my career - so no.

Those are less embarrassing ways to answer the question.

I know zilch about lawyers - except I have a few good jokes about them.

But - don't district judges sit on a panel? I didn't think they sat as the presiding judge in a trial situation where they were the responsible for all the litigation procedures.

I would think that a banc of judges would benefit from having diverse experience in all aspects of what may come to them for their collective decision.

So, I tend to agree with you just based on the logic you have presented.

there are plenty of successful attorneys that never set foot in the courtroom. Today’s regulatory environment makes a nice foundation for a career for a young man or woman want to focus their skills.


Heck, the biggest “trial attorney” in my area has never set foot in a courtroom.

quote:

---

This fricking double standard and the fricking whining that goes with it are tiresome.

---

Whining about whining. Classic gthog61

We’re a year into Trump’s first term and all we seem to get from you is “but but but Obama”. Sad.

quote:

---

all we seem to get from you is “but but but Obama”.

---

as opposed to Obama, who was still blaming Bush for the disaster his DEM buddies wrought on the nation as he completed his 8 yr apology tenure.

I’m a litigator. I do believe your points are somewhat valid.

That said. Most appellate level judges have law professor backgrounds, and that kind of knowledge isn’t necessarily experience, and for rendering legal opinions - I think it is a negative, and I think it contributes to judicial overreach. For example: Rhienquist was criticized for appointment because he had only been a private practice lawyer- never a judge, or a professor. I’ve never understood that. As a lawyer, I have no desire to see appointed appellate judges who have spent their legal careers in academics. Private practice lawyers usually make the best judges because they understand the practical ways their decisions affect people and businesses.

Likewise with regulatory experience. I’d be more interested in knowing whether the guy has ever reperesented actual clients before regulatory agencies. It has been my experience that agencies have usually made up their minds before you ever show up, and you’re contesting whatever the agency did, to the agency. Lawyers opposing agencies, I think that would be the best experience because you see first hand how those agencies actually affect lives. Good luck getting an admninstrative agency to change its mind once it’s made up . . .

(PS that’s why I loved Trump’s appointment to the NLRB. That guy faced the above on a daily basis).

quote:

---

I can a!most guarantee Obama had a worse one slip through but there never was any scrutinybof any of them.

---

1. Whether true or not, that has not bearing on this situation other than a point of frustration.

2. John Kennedy is a member of the president's own party, isn't he? Kind of hard to make an argument that this questioning was partisan politics.

3. I think there are plenty other candidates from which to choose who have a bit more experience as judges or in the courtroom.

So he's more of a solicitor and not a barrister, like you.