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.
3 Trump Judicial Nominees Withdraw, Raising Some Questions About Vetting.
1. Petersen, this week's casualty, had no experience as a trial lawyer. He served on the Federal Election Commission with White House Counsel Don McGahn where the two were considered allies. He withdrew after a video of his confirmation performance went viral. Petersen was unable to answer even the most basic of questions about the rules of evidence for trials.
Petersen — seeing the handwriting on the wall — withdrew.
2. It took longer for the handwriting to become clear for Brett Talley, a 36-year-old Justice Department official, ghost hunter and believer in the paranormal. Specifically, he failed to disclose thousands of controversial blog posts under a pseudonym, including one supporting the early Ku Klux Klan, and failed to disclose that he is married to the chief of staff for White House counsel McGahn.
3. Finally, there was Jeffrey Mateer, an outspoken supporter of religious liberty, nominated with the strong support of his home state senator, Ted Cruz of Texas. Shortly after the nomination was announced, gay rights groups called attention to frequent comments Mateer had made calling same-sex marriage "disgusting" and likening it to polygamy and bestiality. Speaking about a lawsuit brought by a transgender student, Mateer, said "it just shows you how Satan's plan is working and the destruction that is going on."
I don't believe that he's the one making the judicial picks. Rather, he's simply nominating the candidates proposed by the Federalist Society.
While I don't agree with some of the conservative ideals put forth by this organization, I had always assumed that they were at least competent, if not actually intelligent, within their legal expertise. Perhaps the Federalist Society, with an embarrassment of opportunities for judicial nominations, is having trouble coming up with enough qualified candidates who fit their ideological mold?
I don't believe that he's the one making the judicial picks. Rather, he's simply nominating the candidates proposed by the Federalist Society.
While I don't agree with some of the conservative ideals put forth by this organization, I had always assumed that they were at least competent, if not actually intelligent, within their legal expertise. Perhaps the Federalist Society, with an embarrassment of opportunity, is having trouble coming up with enough qualified candidates who fit their ideological mold?
but he could also turn off the TV and do some research on who he is nominating.
Yes, yes, for once I agree with the Trump. He should severely vet all these judicial cabbage heads. After all, when stuff goes off the rails - & trust me, with nominees of this spectacularly low caliber (we're talking purse guns here, folks - or maybe un-zip guns) - things will def go off the rails if any of these golems actually gets to sit on the bench. So why appoint cabbage heads? It's a snazzy personnel concept:
When things go completely, horribly awry, the Trump will get to say Off with their heads!
Is stuff like this where he can't even get low level nominees appointed that makes me chuckle when all the cries of Hitler and fascists come out.
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.
The Red Queen strikes
