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

[Antiganon]

Realistically, what are the chances of a future senate taking the nuclear option off the table again?

Presumably they would need either a filibuster-proof majority, or for at least 30 senators on each side of the aisle to wise up, but does anyone honestly think there is any chance of this happening?

[Valizix]

Trump logic.

here is some reading for you

http://www.businessinsider.com/judge...ew-york-2017-6

The news releases are sent out with considerable regularity, brief and basic accounts of actions taken by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct: A judge is sanctioned for misconduct on the bench; another agrees to give up their job because of questionable behavior in his or her private life.

Many of the announcements note that the judges, as part of their agreement with the commission, pledge to never seek or accept a job as a judge again.

And some of the announcements include a fact that still packs a 21st century punch of surprise: The judges being disciplined are not, and never have been, lawyers.

and in case you missed it

REPORT: There are hundreds of judges in New York who do not have law degrees

[Brubear]

here is some reading for you

http://www.businessinsider.com/judge...ew-york-2017-6

The news releases are sent out with considerable regularity, brief and basic accounts of actions taken by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct: A judge is sanctioned for misconduct on the bench; another agrees to give up their job because of questionable behavior in his or her private life.

Many of the announcements note that the judges, as part of their agreement with the commission, pledge to never seek or accept a job as a judge again.

And some of the announcements include a fact that still packs a 21st century punch of surprise: The judges being disciplined are not, and never have been, lawyers.

and in case you missed it

REPORT: There are hundreds of judges in New York who do not have law degrees

Cool, how many of them have been rated by the ABA as completely unqualified to be a judge, and forgot to mention their wife is a high-ranking White House lawyer (as in, working for an organization he'd regularly have to preside over cases in which they are involved) when asked if he knew anyone who might have an impact on how he votes?

[Dacien]

So when this story first came out, it seemed on the surface that Brett was wildly unqualified. But take a closer look:

• He was a "transactional lawyer", and according to Ben Shapiro, there are many judges who were transactional lawyers who never tried a case.
• The fact that he clerked for judges is a valid credential for becoming a judge. He was a law clerk to a judge on the US Court of Appeals 11th Circuit, and a clerk for a judge in the northern district of Alabama
• Early on he was an associate at Gibson Dunn Crutcher, a top law firm in the US founded in 1890.
• Worked for the Department of Justice
• Went to Harvard Law School

He doesn't seem nearly as unqualified as it appeared at first blush.

[BrerBear]

So when this story first came out, it seemed on the surface that Brett was wildly unqualified. But take a closer look:

• He was a "transactional lawyer", and according to Ben Shapiro, there are many judges who were transactional lawyers who never tried a case.
• The fact that he clerked for judges is a valid credential for becoming a judge. He was a law clerk to a judge on the US Court of Appeals 11th Circuit, and a clerk for a judge in the northern district of Alabama
• Early on he was an associate at Gibson Dunn Crutcher, a top law firm in the US founded in 1890.
• Worked for the Department of Justice
• Went to Harvard Law School

He doesn't seem nearly as unqualified as it appeared at first blush.

Yes, he does.
It’s the reason the ABA issued a rare “not qualified” rating on him.
While some of the criteria you listed would be on his resume, none of them make him suitable for a lifetime federal appointment.

Also, you left out:

• He spent a year as a paranormal investigator. So we know he’s grounded in reality.

P.S. “Brett”? Is he your buddy?

[Dacien]

Also, you left out:

• He spent a year as a paranormal investigator. So we know he’s grounded in reality.

He writes horror novels, and was even nominated for a Bram Stoker award. It's one of his interests. Are we really going to hang our hat on this as a reason he's unqualified to be a judge?

[BrerBear]

He writes horror novels, and was even nominated for a Bram Stoker award. It's one of his interests. Are we really going to hang our hat on this as a reason he's unqualified to be a judge?

I never said it disqualified him. Just that his interests seem to be shitposting and paranormal investigations rather than, you know, law.

Oh, we forgot to add to the resume:

• Defender of the “first KKK”

[Daelak]

He writes horror novels, and was even nominated for a Bram Stoker award. It's one of his interests. Are we really going to hang our hat on this as a reason he's unqualified to be a judge?

Why aren't you addressing the 'unqualified' judgement by the ABA? Liberal Obama Killary Holdover Agents?

[Daelak]

Buttery Uranium!

Hahaha yessss!

[Dacien]

Why aren't you addressing the 'unqualified' judgement by the ABA? Liberal Obama Killary Holdover Agents?

The ABA rating is one factor of many, for sure. All I said was that he wasn't nearly as unqualified as it seemed at first blush. I'd like to particularly refer to the fact that he's "never tried a case."

I stand by that.

[Mormolyce]

Realistically, what are the chances of a future senate taking the nuclear option off the table again?

Presumably they would need either a filibuster-proof majority, or for at least 30 senators on each side of the aisle to wise up, but does anyone honestly think there is any chance of this happening?

It's hard to predict, the nuclear option was essentially an act of short-term political thinking that's going to bite them in the ass hard when the Democrats are back in power. The Democrats, having suffered under it for years, will be eager to get their own back with it. So for the short term at least I don't see it being returned.

Partisan politics are wildly out of control and a serious de-escalation is needed, but that's impossible with fringe candidates like Trump spiking the punch.

[PACOX]

This country needs national referendums.

[lockedout]

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



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?

What's wrong with that?

[Brubear]

What's wrong with that?

Has pretty much no courtroom experience, especially at the federal level, and the ABA has said he's wholly unqualified to be a judge. You don't see what's wrong with making them a federal judge?

Why am I not surprised.

[Daelak]

The ABA rating is one factor of many, for sure. All I said was that he wasn't nearly as unqualified as it seemed at first blush. I'd like to particularly refer to the fact that he's "never tried a case."

I stand by that.

Your argument was actually weakened with your earlier post about his "qualifications". It makes him look worse at 38 if he's been in a nationally recognized law firm and hasn't been the lead attorney on any cases, it actually looks more about favoritism or nepotism at that point. Secondly, having a law degree from Harvard, even though prestigious, is still far and away from the real experience being a trial attorney and actually defending or prosecuting for a client. This is why for decades the ABA judgement has been so critical, because it is based off of the experience of proven and veteran trial attorneys and judges, not some political statement.