Ford expressly ruled out the July 1 date yesterday.
Only when the President is impeached. Any other officer (including the Vice-President) is tried by the Senate with the President of the Senate presiding.
And I believe that SCOTUS is considered a trial court
The last part was modified by the Eleventh Amendment (a state sued by a citizen of another state) and Hans v. Louisiana (a state sued by its own citizen) and now applies to suits between states.
Also, in United States v. Shipp, SCOTUS was a trial court for a contempt charge.
I stand corrected on both points. But the fact remains that the primary work of the Supreme Court is reviewing and deciding whether to hear and make judgments that uphold or reverse the decisions of lower courts. The primary role of justices on the court is to be conversant in the interpretation of the Constitution with respect to the validity of decisions, laws, executive orders, and regulations rendered by lower courts and other branches of government.
Stranger
That was Matthew Petersen. He withdrew last December, after being nominated on September 11, 2017. The hearing was painful to watch.
Agreed. And in those instances where it does act as a trial court (like when one state sues another), it typically appoints someone (with the charming title of “Special Master”) to conduct the trial. They just vote on whether or not to accept the outcome, once again like an appellate court.
He never tried a case as a judge before he became a judge. Sort of a tautology.
The meme I saw was that he never litigated a case as a *lawyer *before he became a judge. This is pretty much true although he did argue a case in front of the Supreme Court (which he lost).
Many lawyers are not litigators (that is, they to not take legal action against people and organizations but rather work in administrative, intellectual property, transactional, or other areas of law that infrequently result in court trials) and even among those who are, many will never take a significant case to trial unless they are a prosecutor, criminal defense attorney, or personal injury/corporate defense lawyer. There is a lot more to being a lawyer than performing in court, and many trial lawyers are not actually that knowledgeable about areas of the law beyond their particular focus. Suggesting that an attorney is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court because they haven’t testified in a trial is like saying a mechanical engineer isn’t qualified to do thermodynamic cycle analysis because he or she doesn’t work on their own vehicle.
Stranger
Nitpick, you don’t mean “testified.” You mean something like “conduced” or “participated in.”
Anyway, I agree with your point. I do prefer Federal District Court judges to have some litigation experience. They tend to “get it” faster (in most, but not all, cases).
True, and there are so many other reasons to oppose Kavanaugh.
The same can be said of Clarence Thomas.
He was Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education and then Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). That’s ten years away from the law.
He gets appointed a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and serves 16 months. Then gets nominated to the Supreme Court.
His lack of experience didn’t matter.
Kavanaugh does have over 11 years on the same appeals court.
And even when the chief justice presides over a presidential impeachment trial, it’s not really a judicial function in any recognizable way. Judges can’t normally be overruled on every procedural matter by a majority of the jury.
No. The article states that she said not all the people listed in the “Timmie’s place” were at the party in question. But I believe she said that Mark and Brett showed up later, and already drunk, so it could have been after the initial get-together then.
Even so, if that calendar lists every social gathering, then he was quite a hermit and not much happened during or else he stayed in his room during beach week - etc.