I am not saying they are unqualified. I am saying that Trump didn’t pick them. I’m also saying that if you handed him two lists of names - 20 from the names that his team published during the campaign and 20 from the USA Modern Pentathlon team, he wouldn’t know which is which.
Sidebar: If it’s as simple as screwing in a lightbulb, why don’t you do it yourself? Why are you dependent on Superman to do it for you?
You might be right, but it doesn’t matter. The people around him will make sure he’s choosing from the right list when he makes his selection.
I think it was still quite obviously the right move. Even better will be returning to the talking filibuster – no filibuster can take place without the continuous presence on the floor of the filibustering members. I think there’s no way McConnell wouldn’t have done this on his own anyway, so at least the Democrats got some things done while they had the Senate.
Extreme right, you may be sure.
Does the GOP prefer to be called The Hypocrite Party or The Hypocrisy Party?
Here’s a Trump nominee who has never tried a case failing to answer basic legal questions.
KENNEDY: Have you ever tried a jury trial?
PETERSEN: I have not.
KENNEDY: Civil?
PETERSEN: No.
KENNEDY: Criminal?
PETERSEN: No.
KENNEDY: Bench?
PETERSEN: No.
KENNEDY: State or federal court?
PETERSEN: I have not.
KENNEDY: As a trial judge, you’re obviously going to have witnesses. Can you tell me what the Daubert standard is?
PETERSEN: Sen. Kennedy, I don’t have that readily at my disposal but I would be happy to take a closer look at that. That is not something I’ve had to contend with.
KENNEDY: Do you know what a motion in limine is?
PETERSEN: Yes... I haven’t, I’m, again, my background is not in litigation as when I was replying to Chairman (Chuck) Grassley (R-Iowa), I haven’t had to um, again, do a deep dive.
And he’s not the only Trump nominee to have never tried a case before being pushed up to a staggering level of power.
Try “the winning party”. Because, at the end of the day, that’s all that counts. And they are absolutely winning. Sucks for the rest of us.
I see no indication that you are actually interested in debate and your points are nonsensical racist garbage. It’s tiresome.
I am a person of color, specifically of Salvadoran descent.
I disagree. While I think people are predictable to some extent, I don’t agree that white people are more predictable than, say, Latinx people.
So asking any person of color did not help your thesis.
Sorry, this drive-by snark needs to be addressed in full:
Though you (and many, many white folk) will be very surprised at this revelation: minorities pay taxes and deserve to have a responsive government just like everyone else. In Ferguson, MO, white folk didn’t believe in this idea and deliberately set up a hustling ring where black citizens were targeted with fines and tickets to the tune of $13 million. In one case, a black woman was charged $1200 for a “derelict vehicle” in her driveway. Black folk can’t even put their fucking cars in their driveway without white folk trying to harass and extort money out of them. Further, in the case of Flint, white folks (and one sunken-place clown) in Lansing decided they know how to better govern Flint, stripped the local leadership of power, deliberately decided to switch to the Flint River, then sent fliers to black parents telling them it’s OK to bathe your child inlead-tainted water. Only a monster would tell parents to put bathe their children in water contaminated with heavy metals. When the black parents told Flint officials of skin itching and skin rashes due to bathing, white folks doubled down, insisting that lead had nothing to do with it but, to date, have not (and will) not offer any credible explanation of the rashes. And given how white folks now flee from facts when those facts may be politically inconvenient, we may never know.
Sidebar: Why don’t you address my points? For example, I responded to your post. No response to the substance nor point-by-point rebuttal. Nothing. Instead of replying to salient points to elicit a discussion, folks seem content to wander into the dark woods of white fragility. I’ll put out an amber alert after work.
Forum question: Can we use another poster’s reply to reply to another post in another thread?
Anyway, I’ll leave this this reply from brother eschereal. I believe it’s self-explanatory and needs no further explanation.
(emphasis mine)
I agree that Peterson was manifestly unqualified, and, indeed, have raised his example several times myself.
But in my view, the damning part is not the lack of trial experience. Trials are, for example, distinct from appellate work: the appellate attorney does not try cases; he argues the trial record and issues arising therefrom. We could imagine, for example, a thirty-year veteran of the Solicitor General’s office, someone who has argued hundreds of cases in front of the US Supreme Court. Yet that person, too, would answer “no,” to that entire first set of questions. Appellate argument is not trial work.
(Not gonna lie: I personally feel criminal trial work SHOULD be a requirement, as a prosecutor or ideally as defense counsel. But that’s my personal view, nothing more).
In my opinion, where Peterson went off the rails was not knowing anything about the standard case law, the procedure, the theory, if you will. If he had said, “While I’ve never argued one, I certainly know what a motion in limine is,” and then accurately described the process by which pre-trial rulings are sought, I’d defend him. If he had said, “I’ve never applied it, but the Daubert standard relates to admissibility of scientific evidence,” or even “I’m not sure of the specifics of Younger, but abstention doctrines generally relate to reasons a federal court will not hear a case that involves state laws if the state court has not first weighed in,” then, maybe, I’d have had some sympathy.
But no. US District Court benches can’t be on-the-job training. You sit down facing real litigants who are depending upon you to fairly vindicate their rights, and you can’t do that if you’re fuzzy on the idea of pre-trial motions.
Which is all well and good, except that when you talk about “whiteness” any white person would quite reasonably feel attacked, whether or not they espouse that ideology, because the common understanding of “white” refers to skin color. So when you say:
“White folks wouldn’t strain to be consistent here. White folks just want to dismantle roll back woman’s rights, roll back gay and lesbian rights, roll back affirmative action, roll back regulations on the environment, etc. Let them; we deserve the government we elect.”
Hi! White guy here! None of this applies to me.
When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master. That’s all.”
“Alice Through the Looking Glass,” Lewis Carroll, 1872
Meaning: I do not concede to you the power to simply declare that white people are those possessed on a certain ideology.
Ooh, neat, you have a prescriptivist and a descriptivist complaining about how you’re using your words! 
No, we’ve kicked this one around a fair amount.
Cite. Emphasis added. The Ninth Amendment says there can be other rights than the enumerated ones, the Tenth makes it clear who has the power to enumerate them, and Article V says how to do it. Notice that the Supreme Court isn’t mentioned anywhere in there.
Regards,
Shodan
Let’s try and keep the hijacks and sidebars to a minimum in this thread, folks.
I’d appreciate it.
nm - saw JC 's mod note, and don’t want to hijack.
Regards,
Shodan
This all seems very familiar. Wasn’t doom and gloom predicted when Sandra Day O’Connor was replaced by Alito?
The only one I heard targeting politicians was that left wing nut trying to shootup a softball field full of senators. I would say that’s crazy talk, but we have already seen it from the left. It’s reality…
I suppose a supreme court justice should have a security person with them if they don’t already to limit the risk of an assignation attempt. If one were to be assassinated far from the age of retirement, I would hope whomever the President is picking would pick a moderate type of replacement.