Trump Judicial Nominee Can’t Answer Basic Questions About The Law In Disastrous Hearing Matthew Spencer Petersen admits to “the challenge that would be ahead of me.” One of President Donald Trump’s nominees to a lifetime seat on a U.S. district court struggled to answer basic questions about law during his Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) asked a panel of Trump’s judicial nominees to indicate if they had never tried a case to verdict in a courtroom. Matthew Spencer Petersen, a nominee for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, raised his hand. Kennedy proceeded to press him on legal matters. 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. It only got worse from there. Petersen, who is currently the chairman of the U.S. Federal Election Commission, struggled to answer more questions as it became clear he did not have the experience typically expected of a federal judge. 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. Petersen then began ticking off his experience “in a decision-making role” at the FEC. Kennedy interrupted him: KENNEDY: Yes, I’ve read your resume. Just for the record, do you know what a motion in limine is? PETERSEN: I would probably not be able to give you a good definition right here at the table. KENNEDY: Do you know what the Younger abstention doctrine is? PETERSEN: Um, I’ve heard of it... but I, again. KENNEDY: How about the Pullman abstention doctrine? PETERSEN: I... I heard... KENNEDY: Y’all see that a lot in federal court. A number of Trump’s judicial nominees have come under fire for not being fit to serve on the federal bench. Four of his court picks have been rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Association ― an embarrassingly high number to receive the abysmal rating in a president’s first year. One of them, district court court nominee Brett Talley, withdrew his nomination this week. Part of the reason this keeps happening is that Trump is nominating judges at a breakneck pace without taking the time to thoroughly vet their backgrounds. That’s leading to problems later in their confirmation process, as senators discover more details about their background. Many of Trump’s court picks are being funneled to him by the The Federalist Society, a right-wing legal organization focused on filling up courts with conservative judges. Kennedy is one of few Republicans critical of Trump’s judicial nominees, saying at one point the president is “getting some very, very bad advice.”
No question some questionable people can rise to positions of influence. Example: The other day I saw this terrorist scumbag attempted murderer on TV. You know, the cockroach who tried to blow up a subway station in NYC. Then I started thinking.......hmmmmm.....how is this guy different from Obama's old buddy Bill Ayers? You know, Obama launched his political career in his living room. And Obama and Michelle worked at the same law firm as Ayers terrorist bomber wife..Bernadine? Maybe someone could help me to spot the differences? Nevermind.
There is no requirement to have tried cases. They have judicial training seminars that all new judges go through anyway. Most of a federal district court judges' duties in Dc will be criminal sentencings and agency issues. Jury trials are rare in federal court. Anyone who has ever served on a jury knows any halfway competent person can run a courtroom.
Wait til Trump appoints someone to the Supreme Court who is not even a lawyer- no requirement in the Constitution. That should put the ABA's collective panties in a bunch. Not saying he should do that, but the entertainment value of watching them react would be worth the price of admission.