Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you make the same point when Kagan and Sotomayor were appointed to the Supreme Court? Kagan had no experience, and Sotomayor isn't very smart.
And you say this because?
Sotamayor was an incredibly experienced appointee. She served as an Assistant United States Attorney in New York state. She than served as a United States District Court Judge where she presided over trials. Finally, she served as a United States Court of Appeals Judge on the Second Circuit United States Appeals Court. She also happens to be both a woman and Hispanic which I think also are important in terms of having some diversity on the Supreme Court.
I have heard Justice Sotomayor speak and I certainly wonder what makes you think she isn't smart.
I think your real problem is nothing more than you identify her as "liberal" and you believe there is no such a thing as a smart liberal. I would like to think I am wrong, but your comments don't portray anything deeper than that. If I am right about that, we might as well end this discussion. Because, frankly, anyone who believes that if someone is a liberal than "they aren't very smart" isn't worth having this discussion with.
There are countless trial judges in this country who would have to look it up (or at least read what the lawyers put in their papers). They'd know what it was in the sense that it deals with admissibility of expert opinion evidence, which is more then the guy in the video knew, but they wouldn't know the precise standard. I'm a litigator, and I don't.
What was lost in this was that the committee was actually interviewing 5 people at the same time for a life long position as a Federal Judge, is that the norm. These are important positions regardless of your leaning, they should be seriously vetted because they are there for life. What exactly is the rush, they need to insure they are qualified.
No company would do expedited hiring for a position for life interviewing 5 people at the same time.
Yes, I noticed that somewhat as well. They don't even do that to interview people for McDonald's.
i read the link someone posted earlier and i got a chuckle out of this from the article:
Earlier Monday, Kennedy told New Orleans television station WWL-TV that he was surprised when he learned that Petersen had no litigation experience.
“Just because you’ve seen ‘My Cousin Vinny’ doesn’t qualify you to be a federal judge,” Kennedy said, referring to the 1992 film comedy starring Joe Pesci, who played a lawyer fresh out of law school who represented two young New Yorkers put on trial in rural Alabama for a murder they did not commit.
There are countless trial judges in this country who would have to look it up (or at least read what the lawyers put in their papers). They'd know what it was in the sense that it deals with admissibility of expert opinion evidence, which is more then the guy in the video knew, but they wouldn't know the precise standard. I'm a litigator, and I don't.
Your a litigator don't know what a motion in Lemony is Mr Peterson had no answer at all the ABA recommended Mr Peterson not be nominated this man would have been appointed for life never once litigated in any court.
None of the questions had to do with "basic legal concepts". Basic legal concepts are the substance of tort law, contract law, real property law, and criminal law -- all the stuff lawyers learn in the first year of law school.
I have to question how much of a litigator you are. I have spoken to people I know at UC Berkeley, and I've read articles with real legal experts, and they are all unanimous in saying that these were really basic concepts that anyone sitting in that nomination chair should be able to handle with some minimum level of competence.
An Obama prosecutor got by 9-0 the conviction overturned by the Supreme Court!
I guess that one has to learn a lot and is now in serious trouble again!
Democrats are so fast to bash Trump but in the end the Democrats House of Cards is coming down now and it goes faster down then they ever expected!
Supreme Court also overturned the travel ban that the 9th circuit court said was not legal to ban. The 9th circuit leftwing biased judges have to learn some based constitutional law!
Trump is inept....a crying baby when he doesn't get his way. He lashes out at everyone who disagrees with him. Is this who we really want running our country. Sorry, intelligence needs to take over. He's done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
