Senate panel approves Trump judicial nominee who has never tried a case

[Brubear]

In today's edition of "the GOP will rubber-stamp almost anything in order to make sure they have power"...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...-never-tried-a

Civil rights groups are blasting the Senate Judiciary Committee for voting to confirm Brett J. Talley to a lifetime appointment on a federal court despite the fact that he has never tried a case.

In a report in the Los Angeles Times, civil rights advocates express bewilderment that the 36-year-old could be confirmed given his lack of experience.

Talley, a former Alabama deputy solicitor general, has practiced law for three years. Judiciary approved his nomination to serve on the federal district court for the Middle District of Alabama in an 11-9, party-line vote.

"He’s practiced law for less than three years and never argued a motion, let alone brought a case. This is the least amount of experience I’ve seen in a judicial nominee,” Kristine Lucius, executive vice president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, told the Times.
A judicial rating committee in the American Bar Association reportedly unanimously declared Talley "not qualified" ahead of his confirmation, the Times wrote.

Talley admitted during his confirmation hearing that he had only participated once in a federal court hearing, as part of the legal team in a case during his time as the deputy solicitor general.

The nominee also previously worked as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, which considers judicial nominees. Talley first worked as Alabama's deputy solicitor general under Sen. Luther Strange (R-Ala.), who was appointed to the seat when Jeff Sessions left to become the U.S. attorney general.

The man has only practiced law for 3 years, and has only even participated in one federal hearing where he was merely part of the legal team and didn't actually have to argue in front of the judge. Yet somehow he is qualified to become a federal judge based on his...extensive legal background?

[Stop Pretending]

Trump logic.

[Polyxo]

But he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[Captain N]

Well this is Alabama -- and if Roy Moore is representative of their court system this is just another day at the office.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Don't you just hate it when feminists get a job that they have no experience for because of some political agenda?

Oh wait, this is Republicans hiring an incompetent no experience dipshit. Nothing wrong here, move along.

[Gestopft]

We just need to keep a running list of all of this shit, so the next time the GoP has a minor quibble with a Democratic president's nominee, we can just say *ahem* and remind them that this happened.

This does, however, have to go to the full Senate, right?

[Vizardlorde]

next time they tell you government is incompetent and inefficient you know they are the ones that make it so.

[s_bushido]

So, exactly how rich is his family?

[jdbond592]

Oh, the joy of all this winning.

[Cerilis]

So, exactly how rich is his family?

Probably a bit less by now.

[Paranoid Android]

I mean fucking cmon Republicans! I can't wait to see Democrat appointments of Michael Moore to the judiciary or Jimmy Kimmel to DHS.

What's funny and sad is Republican bullshit about how they will fight Trump where they believe he is wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't you just hate it when feminists get a job that they have no experience for because of some political agenda?

Oh wait, this is Republicans hiring an incompetent no experience dipshit. Nothing wrong here, move along.

Great comment. Next Democrat hire/appoint a minority and when asked why this person was appointed. Just say because he/she was; black, gay, transgender, etc. Watch the GOP effin heads explode.

[Skroe]

"Conservatives", more like largely unqualified crazies.

Thank you Harry Reid, you piece of shit.

Care to read his defense for using the Nuclear Option?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/o...ir-senate.html

One thing we fought for that’s worth defending is a fairer, more open and more productive Senate. We changed the Senate rules to guarantee a president’s nominees a simple-majority vote, and declared that a president’s nominees should not be stymied with procedural hurdles and a requirement for supermajority votes. (Supreme Court nominations still have this requirement.)

We declared that the changes should apply regardless of which party was in the White House, because fair votes are what democracy is all about. I doubt any of us envisioned Donald J. Trump’s becoming the first president to take office under the new rules. But what was fair for President Obama is fair for President Trump.

Moreover, the rule change has been a victory for those who want to see a functioning, open and transparent Senate. It allowed Mr. Obama’s judicial nominees to receive the just consideration they deserved. Without the rule change, Republicans would have been able to hold open three seats on our nation’s second highest court, the District of Columbia Circuit Court, until the next Republican administration. The judges we confirmed to those seats will loom large in the years to come. In 2014 alone, the Senate confirmed 89 Circuit and District Court judges, more than for any year in two decades.

The rule change was consistent with the history of the Senate, which has continually evolved when faced with new challenges. Historically, the only way to reject nominees to cabinet posts, which are not lifetime appointments, has been by a simple-majority vote. Moreover, the supermajority threshold for bills and nominations is not in the Constitution, nor was it in the original Senate rules.

From George Washington to George W. Bush, only 68 presidential nominees had been filibustered. Senate Republicans took obstruction to a new level, filibustering 79 of Mr. Obama’s nominees in just four years. By removing such procedural ploys, the rule change puts the debate over nominees out in the open. Senators have to answer a simple question: Should a nominee be confirmed, or not? Nominees are now guaranteed a floor vote.

With Republicans holding a slim majority, Democrats have a fighting chance at winning every debate. To be sure, persuading a majority of the Senate to your side is harder than blocking a confirmation on a procedural vote. But it is also fairer.

When Democrats pick their fights next year, they can do so knowing that, win or lose, they will be debating in a Senate that we made more open and more transparent. If Democrats stand for what they believe in, they will find that trusting the courage of their convictions while out of power will empower them to accomplish great things when the pendulum swings back, as it always does.

Read this nonsense and ask yourselves if you agree with this moron. I'll tell you why you shouldn't: it is the responsibility of the Legislative Branch to check (restrain), and not wantonly enable the Executive Branch. A more correct way of phrasing his thought process should have been "But what was unfair for President Obama is unfair for President Trump." 60 votes acted as a barrier against the abjectly partisan and the crazy.

So remember, when this guy in the topic becomes a judge, when Rick Perry is the Secretary of the Department of Energy (AKA the Nuclear Weapons Establishment), when Rex Tillerson is Secretary of State (and butchering the place), when Jeff Sessions if Attorney General.... the ultimate author of that disaster is this man:



A blight upon America whose career lasted years too long. One day to be rightfully joined in retirement by McConnell and Pelsoi (Boehner is already there too), the fearsome four who crippled politics for years through their dysfunction and weakness.

[Lenonis]

"Conservatives", more like largely unqualified crazies.

This is pretty much legitimately terrifying given not only the power the judicial branch has, but the inability to reverse these appointments after Trump is gone.

[Masark]

Thank you Harry Reid, you piece of shit.

Care to read his defense for using the Nuclear Option?

What precisely leads you believe that the current crop of republicans wouldn't have done what they did/are doing regardless of what Reid did?

[Dacien]

"Conservatives", more like largely unqualified crazies.

Wait, hold on Skroe. Can you point to any other conservative appointments that are as indefensible as the one that is the subject of this thread?

[Ripster42]

Wait, hold on Skroe. Can you point to any other conservative appointments that are as indefensible as the one that is the subject of this thread?

Not as indefensible, but they've stopped asking the aba to review their appointees and their last few have been given failing grades by the aba, because they grade them regardless.

[Trifle]

Read this nonsense and ask yourselves if you agree with this moron. I'll tell you why you shouldn't: it is the responsibility of the Legislative Branch to check (restrain), and not wantonly enable the Executive Branch. A more correct way of phrasing his thought process should have been "But what was unfair for President Obama is unfair for President Trump." 60 votes acted as a barrier against the abjectly partisan and the crazy.

Although to be fair, it should be pointed out that calling what the Republicans were doing 'restraining' is somewhat of an understatement. He probably felt like they didn't have much choice if they wanted a functioning government. I agree with you that it shouldn't have happened, but it turns out there isn't much you can do when a bunch of crazies decide they don't want to do any work until their president is elected. And obviously it's come back to bite them in the ass now.

[Skroe]

What precisely leads you believe that the current crop of republicans wouldn't have done what they did/are doing regardless of what Reid did?

Absolutely nothing. But it may have been in steps (as in, they wouldn't have used the nuclear option on court appointments) with them the initiator. Regardless, that doesn't let Reid off the hook.

Democrats should not have thrown the first punch. One my hopes, as a conservative, was that when Republicans took the Senate, McConnell would refrain from utilizing the nuclear option on any candidates in order to illustrate why the 60 vote threshold was and important safeguard. A hope, but a small hope.

Donald Trump has debased countless American norms. But that practice didn't start with Donald Trump. Democrats and Republicans have been doing it for years. Reid finally utilizing the nuclear option, pre-Trump, in my view, was by far the most egregious.

I do not think Republicans would have gone nuclear for cabinent appointments, had it not happened already. The Supreme Court? Probably. Still, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry is a thing because Harry Reid failed to lead by example.

[Gestopft]

I do not think Republicans would have gone nuclear for cabinent appointments, had it not happened already. The Supreme Court? Probably. Still, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry is a thing because Harry Reid failed to lead by example.

What exactly was Reid supposed to do in the face of such blatant and rampant obstruction? When an opposition has made it clear that they aren't going to engage in good faith (and hold the majority hostage), would you honestly expect one to just roll over and take the losses?

[PosPosPos]

What exactly was Reid supposed to do in the face of such blatant and rampant obstruction? When an opposition has made it clear that they aren't going to engage in good faith (and hold the majority hostage), would you honestly expect one to just roll over and take the losses?

It's just one of Skroe's logical dissonances.

His loyalty to the Republican party(leading to that so oft-seen Democrat bashing) having this tug-of-war versus his acknowledgement that his party self-destructed due to it's own malicious ways and is in unsalvageable shambles for the foreseeable future.