The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Trump's Corruption of [The United States Judiciary]
Nice to see a breakdown of what was being asked. Not super rare edge case type thing, but normal business type things.
There needs to be some sort of minimum experience requirements for this type of thing. In this case it should be something like "has a law degree".
Matthew Petersen has a Juris Doctor. As an FEC commissioner he actually (persumably) has a fair amount of knowledge about a specialized area of the law as well as familiarity with drafting and interpreting law.
What he doesn't have is any trial experience. Where he's being nominated to be the judge overseeing trials. He'd almost be better off as an appeals court judge where he could actually research the shit out of questions. A trial judge can't do that. They make a whole lot of rulings on the spot and a broad knowledge of law and how it is actually applied is essential.
Nice to see a breakdown of what was being asked. Not super rare edge case type thing, but normal business type things.
There needs to be some sort of minimum experience requirements for this type of thing. In this case it should be something like "has a law degree".
Matthew Petersen has a Juris Doctor. As an FEC commissioner he actually (persumably) has a fair amount of knowledge about a specialized area of the law as well as familiarity with drafting and interpreting law.
What he doesn't have is any trial experience. Where he's being nominated to be the judge overseeing trials. He'd almost be better off as an appeals court judge where he could actually research the shit out of questions. A trial judge can't do that. They make a whole lot of rulings on the spot and a broad knowledge of law and how it is actually applied is essential.
Yeah, I saw that in popehat's post about the guy. So yeah, he at least went to law school. But popehat very nicely summarizes why his has zero business being nominated for this position.
This is still before confirmation right? Like, Sen Kennedy could still lead the R's to go, "but seriously, we aren't doing THIS shit." or at least enough of them?
They've had a full year to stop drinking koolaid, why would they stop now?
Nice to see a breakdown of what was being asked. Not super rare edge case type thing, but normal business type things.
There needs to be some sort of minimum experience requirements for this type of thing. In this case it should be something like "has a law degree".
Matthew Petersen has a Juris Doctor. As an FEC commissioner he actually (persumably) has a fair amount of knowledge about a specialized area of the law as well as familiarity with drafting and interpreting law.
What he doesn't have is any trial experience. Where he's being nominated to be the judge overseeing trials. He'd almost be better off as an appeals court judge where he could actually research the shit out of questions. A trial judge can't do that. They make a whole lot of rulings on the spot and a broad knowledge of law and how it is actually applied is essential.
Yeah, I saw that in popehat's post about the guy. So yeah, he at least went to law school. But popehat very nicely summarizes why his has zero business being nominated for this position.
Its basically like this. I know an oral surgeon, personal friend, he took my wisdom teeth out, did jaw surgery on a friend, great guy. He has been an OS 15 years now. He did a 6 month general surgery rotation as part of his residency where he did some simple surgeries - gall bladder surgery, appendectomy, etc - under guidance of an experienced surgeons.
Now, is he technically qualified to do thoracic surgery right now independently? Sure. Is there any way I’d go to him if I needed an appendectomy? Hell no.
This is like if he randomly, without any other training, applied for a position as head thoractic surgeon at a major hospital.
Edit: abdominal surgery, not thoractic. I am not a surgeon of any kind, so excuse my confusing of anatomy.
This stuff is scarier than the tax plan and net neutrality combined, but gets next to no coverage. NN and taxes we might be able to do something about when we take congress. This? Is there any solution to this that we are allowed to discuss on this forum?
This stuff is scarier than the tax plan and net neutrality combined, but gets next to no coverage. NN and taxes we might be able to do something about when we take congress. This? Is there any solution to this that we are allowed to discuss on this forum?
Flip the Senate next year, that's about it
Though Trump has already withdrawn a few horrid nominees so far
Public exposure of their utter lack of qualifications like this helps to force that to happen
This stuff is scarier than the tax plan and net neutrality combined, but gets next to no coverage. NN and taxes we might be able to do something about when we take congress. This? Is there any solution to this that we are allowed to discuss on this forum?
Flip the Senate next year, that's about it
Though Trump has already withdrawn a few horrid nominees so far
Public exposure of their utter lack of qualifications like this helps to force that to happen
If they have a lame duck session, surely they'll ram through all the lifetime nominees they can, right? At which point...is there even an impeachment process for judges?
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
This stuff is scarier than the tax plan and net neutrality combined, but gets next to no coverage. NN and taxes we might be able to do something about when we take congress. This? Is there any solution to this that we are allowed to discuss on this forum?
Flip the Senate next year, that's about it
Though Trump has already withdrawn a few horrid nominees so far
Public exposure of their utter lack of qualifications like this helps to force that to happen
If they have a lame duck session, surely they'll ram through all the lifetime nominees they can, right? At which point...is there even an impeachment process for judges?
On the plus side, I now know how to pronounce Limine when the annual updates need to be processed. In my head I was always saying le-mine. Thanks, unqualified Trump appointee.
im fuzzy on how american judiciary stuff works, but if these are lifetime positions how can they be challenged? Like i assume its not like the supreme court where you have to die or resign, can you be forced out for bad performance or the position challeneged by a future administration?
im fuzzy on how american judiciary stuff works, but if these are lifetime positions how can they be challenged? Like i assume its not like the supreme court where you have to die or resign, can you be forced out for bad performance or the position challeneged by a future administration?
They can be removed by impeachment. Which helps insulate the Judiciary from politics, until you start rubber stamping people who don't know what a trial is.
Trump has proven already that you don't have to know anything about government to be President, so I don't see why a judge should need to know about the law.
It's kinda insane that you wouldn't at least brush up on some of the legislation before going for a committee. If I just started doing shit at my law job without reading up on it, I would be fired so fast.
The bad news is that they're probably still going to let other unqualified yahoos through.
Or at the least, underqualified yahoos. Being able to affirmatively answer the questions posed by Senator Kennedy (R) should be the bare minimum. But you shouldn't be aiming for the bare minimum. There's a limited number of positions available, and a crapload of people with legal backgrounds. Even adjusting for innate political biases (Democrat vs Republican), you should STILL be able to find sufficient bodies in the top 5% in terms of suitability to nominate.
That Trump has nominated that one chucklefuck that the ABA listed as "Unqualified", and now this obviously out of his element putz (who should NEVER have accepted the nomination), means they're not even trying to find quality competent jurists. Yay for partisanship!
These f'n guys.
They are essentially nominating the most partisan Republican poll watchers they can find.
They dont need to know the law, they just need to know which ruling will prove beneficial to Republicans in the short term.
The loophole in Federal courts is that they are all established by statute, except for the Supreme Court which exists in the Constitution but which is also defined by statute. If we ever reached a case where we had Democratic majorities in both houses, no filibuster, but every attempt at progressive law was struck down by a compromised court system, congress could simply pass a law that eliminated all of the lower courts and reduced the number of Supreme Court Justices to 1, and then the very next day pass a law that restored them, keeping the people they wanted and tossing the people they didn't.
Which would be a huge partisan violation of the nature of the judicial branch, but i'm only speaking about a worst-case-scenario. At the end of the day, pretty much every government position outside of the President, Vice President, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court exists at the whim of congress.
The loophole in Federal courts is that they are all established by statute, except for the Supreme Court which exists in the Constitution but which is also defined by statute. If we ever reached a case where we had Democratic majorities in both houses, no filibuster, but every attempt at progressive law was struck down by a compromised court system, congress could simply pass a law that eliminated all of the lower courts and reduced the number of Supreme Court Justices to 1, and then the very next day pass a law that restored them, keeping the people they wanted and tossing the people they didn't.
Which would be a huge partisan violation of the nature of the judicial branch, but i'm only speaking about a worst-case-scenario. At the end of the day, pretty much every government position outside of the President, Vice President, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court exists at the whim of congress.
There's already a huge partisan corruption of the judicial branch and it's impartiality is a joke no one believes in. Like many things though, it just kinda limps on. That is to say, it won't happen that way because people would be scandalized by it, so instead it's in a more slow-motion free-fall where everyone pretends like nothing is wrong. Trump's appointments, at the end of the day, are just a culmination of a decades long effort to stack the judiciary to that same effect, just by different means.
The "acceptable" loophole for fixing this is just deal with it for decades to come and win more elections and maybe have some goddamn courage when it comes to the next set of appointments.
Well, people were somehow blaming the Dems for removing the 60 person requirement to even put someone up. Because the Rs weren't even letting a single one of Obama's nominations through anyway. Or stalled it for a while year without a single vote. But no, it's clearly the Democrats fault.
It's kinda insane that you wouldn't at least brush up on some of the legislation before going for a committee. If I just started doing shit at my law job without reading up on it, I would be fired so fast.
You're assuming that you'd get the job in the first place.
Well, people were somehow blaming the Dems for removing the 60 person requirement to even put someone up. Because the Rs weren't even letting a single one of Obama's nominations through anyway. Or stalled it for a while year without a single vote. But no, it's clearly the Democrats fault.
That's the concern I have.
Republicans are obstructionist and nominate partisan judges. Democrats nominate centrist judges, or are called out on it, and still don't always get it (re Garland).
It's a variation of the Overton Window in action. Each R nominee increases the conservative influence on the court. Each D nominee lessens the liberal influence on the court.
The Democratic party needs to get serious about packing the courts in response to this.
Well, people were somehow blaming the Dems for removing the 60 person requirement to even put someone up. Because the Rs weren't even letting a single one of Obama's nominations through anyway. Or stalled it for a while year without a single vote. But no, it's clearly the Democrats fault.
That's the concern I have.
Republicans are obstructionist and nominate partisan judges. Democrats nominate centrist judges, or are called out on it, and still don't always get it (re Garland).
It's a variation of the Overton Window in action. Each R nominee increases the conservative influence on the court. Each D nominee lessens the liberal influence on the court.
The Democratic party needs to get serious about packing the courts in response to this.
Difficult to do without having enough people to simply force a nominee through.
Even friggin' FDR couldn't get a court-packing law through. There is practically zero chance of the Supreme Court expanding under normal circumstances anymore.
Even friggin' FDR couldn't get a court-packing law through. There is practically zero chance of the Supreme Court expanding under normal circumstances anymore.
It failed mainly because FDR's man on the inside died before the vote. If I was packing the court, heres how I'd do it:
1. Split the Ninth - this is something that's been needed for some time.
2. State that because of the importance of administering the Circuits, the Court will consist of a number of justices equal to the number of Circuits.
Even friggin' FDR couldn't get a court-packing law through. There is practically zero chance of the Supreme Court expanding under normal circumstances anymore.
It failed mainly because FDR's man on the inside died before the vote. If I was packing the court, heres how I'd do it:
1. Split the Ninth - this is something that's been needed for some time.
2. State that because of the importance of administering the Circuits, the Court will consist of a number of justices equal to the number of Circuits.
Even friggin' FDR couldn't get a court-packing law through. There is practically zero chance of the Supreme Court expanding under normal circumstances anymore.
It failed mainly because FDR's man on the inside died before the vote. If I was packing the court, heres how I'd do it:
1. Split the Ninth - this is something that's been needed for some time.
2. State that because of the importance of administering the Circuits, the Court will consist of a number of justices equal to the number of Circuits.
Even friggin' FDR couldn't get a court-packing law through. There is practically zero chance of the Supreme Court expanding under normal circumstances anymore.
It failed mainly because FDR's man on the inside died before the vote. If I was packing the court, heres how I'd do it:
1. Split the Ninth - this is something that's been needed for some time.
2. State that because of the importance of administering the Circuits, the Court will consist of a number of justices equal to the number of Circuits.
Can't have an even number though, so make it 11?
There are currently 13 Circuits.
Whoops, I'm not a smart person. But that still leaves you with the same problem. Much more packing though.
Even friggin' FDR couldn't get a court-packing law through. There is practically zero chance of the Supreme Court expanding under normal circumstances anymore.
It failed mainly because FDR's man on the inside died before the vote. If I was packing the court, heres how I'd do it:
1. Split the Ninth - this is something that's been needed for some time.
2. State that because of the importance of administering the Circuits, the Court will consist of a number of justices equal to the number of Circuits.
The dude in the video that went viral has withdrawn. Probably still would have been confirmed given how much the GOP doesn't care (Kennedy, the guy questioning him, was still reportedly a "yes"), so I guess kudos to him for realizing how out of his depth he was finally?
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
“I had hoped that my nearly two decades of public service might carry more weight than my two worst minutes on television,” he said. “However, I am no stranger to political realities, and I do not wish to be a continued distraction from the important work of your Administration and the Senate.”
Yeah, your two worst minutes that showed how completely unqualified you were for the job...
EDIT: beat by 3m... but I had a link showing the news, so leaving the post...
Posts
Nice to see a breakdown of what was being asked. Not super rare edge case type thing, but normal business type things.
There needs to be some sort of minimum experience requirements for this type of thing. In this case it should be something like "has a law degree".
EDIT: ok, so he does have a law degree. Maybe "has served as a trial judge", or something to that effect.
Which is very different than having a single thing in favor of him being a federal trial judge.
Matthew Petersen has a Juris Doctor. As an FEC commissioner he actually (persumably) has a fair amount of knowledge about a specialized area of the law as well as familiarity with drafting and interpreting law.
What he doesn't have is any trial experience. Where he's being nominated to be the judge overseeing trials. He'd almost be better off as an appeals court judge where he could actually research the shit out of questions. A trial judge can't do that. They make a whole lot of rulings on the spot and a broad knowledge of law and how it is actually applied is essential.
Yeah, I saw that in popehat's post about the guy. So yeah, he at least went to law school. But popehat very nicely summarizes why his has zero business being nominated for this position.
They've had a full year to stop drinking koolaid, why would they stop now?
This guy isn't qualified to work at any place I've worked at where we tried cases, and he's going to be judging trials?
He doesn't know what a motion in limine is
I agree with everything in this tweet thread
Its basically like this. I know an oral surgeon, personal friend, he took my wisdom teeth out, did jaw surgery on a friend, great guy. He has been an OS 15 years now. He did a 6 month general surgery rotation as part of his residency where he did some simple surgeries - gall bladder surgery, appendectomy, etc - under guidance of an experienced surgeons.
Now, is he technically qualified to do thoracic surgery right now independently? Sure. Is there any way I’d go to him if I needed an appendectomy? Hell no.
This is like if he randomly, without any other training, applied for a position as head thoractic surgeon at a major hospital.
Edit: abdominal surgery, not thoractic. I am not a surgeon of any kind, so excuse my confusing of anatomy.
Flip the Senate next year, that's about it
Though Trump has already withdrawn a few horrid nominees so far
Public exposure of their utter lack of qualifications like this helps to force that to happen
If they have a lame duck session, surely they'll ram through all the lifetime nominees they can, right? At which point...is there even an impeachment process for judges?
3/4 of the Senate
On the plus side, I now know how to pronounce Limine when the annual updates need to be processed. In my head I was always saying le-mine. Thanks, unqualified Trump appointee.
The bad news is that they're probably still going to let other unqualified yahoos through.
They can be removed by impeachment. Which helps insulate the Judiciary from politics, until you start rubber stamping people who don't know what a trial is.
Trump has proven already that you don't have to know anything about government to be President, so I don't see why a judge should need to know about the law.
And even I knew one of the answers to those softballs
They are essentially nominating the most partisan Republican poll watchers they can find.
They dont need to know the law, they just need to know which ruling will prove beneficial to Republicans in the short term.
MWO: Adamski
Which would be a huge partisan violation of the nature of the judicial branch, but i'm only speaking about a worst-case-scenario. At the end of the day, pretty much every government position outside of the President, Vice President, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court exists at the whim of congress.
I used to watch Law and Order.
I feel that makes me more qualified than the current yahoo. I could at least answer one of the questions.
There's already a huge partisan corruption of the judicial branch and it's impartiality is a joke no one believes in. Like many things though, it just kinda limps on. That is to say, it won't happen that way because people would be scandalized by it, so instead it's in a more slow-motion free-fall where everyone pretends like nothing is wrong. Trump's appointments, at the end of the day, are just a culmination of a decades long effort to stack the judiciary to that same effect, just by different means.
The "acceptable" loophole for fixing this is just deal with it for decades to come and win more elections and maybe have some goddamn courage when it comes to the next set of appointments.
You're assuming that you'd get the job in the first place.
The Democratic party needs to get serious about packing the courts in response to this.
Difficult to do without having enough people to simply force a nominee through.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
We are a long way past reasonable circumstances at this point.
It failed mainly because FDR's man on the inside died before the vote. If I was packing the court, heres how I'd do it:
1. Split the Ninth - this is something that's been needed for some time.
2. State that because of the importance of administering the Circuits, the Court will consist of a number of justices equal to the number of Circuits.
Can't have an even number though, so make it 11?
There are currently 13 Circuits.
Whoops, I'm not a smart person. But that still leaves you with the same problem. Much more packing though.
And the Ninth would be split into three.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-judicial-nominee-matthew-petersen_us_5a37ec14e4b0ff955ad51e82?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
His reason?
Yeah, your two worst minutes that showed how completely unqualified you were for the job...
EDIT: beat by 3m... but I had a link showing the news, so leaving the post...