Stacking the court with unqualified jurists who are loyal to him is undermining our entire democracy. If you don't think that is dangerous, you don't believe in democracy. As I pointed out they are giving him more and more power - and going after his enemies. The 5th circuit has already ruled that organizers of a protest are responsible for the actions of those who attend. If that doesn't disturb you - what does?
jurists not jurors. So basically you don't care if they are unqualified (never having been in a courtroom) and you don't care if they are making rulings that should disturb conservatives and liberals. This is why people believe you are just a Trumpster pretending to be a "libertarian" A libertarian - a real one - would be appalled
stopped reading again at "unqualified." you seem to be insisting on using that descriptor. unless "unqualified" is being used as a synonym for "I simply disagree with their judicial philosophy"
No it is from the American Bar Association which rarely labels anyone unqualified. I believe the ABA is qualified to say who is not qualified to be a judge
I figured that was what you were gonna say. Let's look at that a bit more closely. here's a list of Trump's judicial appointees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump Feel free to pick your favorite "unqualified" judge off that list. But in the interest of saving time, I'll google "unqualified Trump judge" and come up with this piece in the Hill: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...al-pick-labeled-not-qualified-by-american-bar about Justin Walker in Kentucky. Dick Durbin claims some of Trump's appointees (like Walker) have never been inside a courtroom: Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) chided Republicans ahead of the committee vote, noting that some of Trump’s nominees “have literally never, ever entered a courtroom in their lives." I'll assume Durbin is putting Walker in that category, too. So let's look at Walker's background. From his wikipedia page: Early life and education[edit] Justin Walker was raised in Louisville and attended St. Xavier High School.[2] Walker earned his Bachelor of Arts, summa c*m laude, from Duke University in 2004 and his Juris Doctor, magna c*m laude, from Harvard Law School in 2009, where he served as Notes Editor on the Harvard Law Review.[3][4] Prior to attending law school, Walker was a speechwriter for United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.[5] Legal career[edit] Upon graduating from law school, Walker served as a law clerk to then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He then clerked for Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States.[6][7][8] From 2015–2019, Walker served as an associate professor at the University of Louisville School of Law, where he taught legal writing.[9] Federal judicial service[edit] On June 19, 2019, President Trump announced his intent to nominate Walker to serve as a United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. On June 24, 2019, his nomination was sent to the Senate. Walker is nominated to the seat vacated by Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr., who took senior status on June 9, 2019.[10] The American Bar Association (ABA) rated Walker "not qualified" because he had less than 12 years' experience practicing law.[11] In its rating, the ABA said "it has no questions about Walker's temperament or integrity and that it believes he has great potential to serve as a federal judge."[12] On July 31, 2019, a hearing on his nomination was held before the Senate Judiciary Committee.[13] On October 17, 2019, his nomination was reported out of committee by a 12–10 vote.[14] On October 24, 2019, the Senate voted 50–39 to invoke cloture on his nomination[15] and later that day his nomination was confirmed by a vote of 50–41.[16] He received his judicial commission on October 25, 2019. I'm going to bold the relevant part: The American Bar Association (ABA) rated Walker "not qualified" because he had less than 12 years' experience practicing law.[11] In its rating, the ABA said "it has no questions about Walker's temperament or integrity and that it believes he has great potential to serve as a federal judge."[12] So the ABA says this "unqualified" judge who is Harvard-trained, Harvard Law Review-experienced, clerked-for-Anthony-Kennedy-on-the-Supreme-Court, law professor whom the ABA also says happens to have the "temperament or integrity and that it believes he has great potential to serve as a federal judge" . . . . . . is "unqualified" because he fails to match the arbitrary standard of 12 years of experience "practicing" law. Even though he's got all that "other stuff" going for him. I'll take "unqualified" every time.
Seriously? That's like appointing a doctor who has never been in the OR to be the head of surgery at a hospital. And what about the other 8 unqualified judges? https://ballotpedia.org/ABA_ratings_during_the_Trump_administration
alright. I'm not saying it's ideal. And I think there's a big difference between Harvard-trained law professors who haven't practiced law becoming a judge and a physician running a surgery unit in a hospital. But Trump's judicial appointees by-and-large have been excellent, again, unless you simply disagree with their judicial philosophies.
He has 9 appointments that have been rated as unqualified in 3 years. The previous 3 presidents spanning 24 years had 11. Think about that. He makes 3 bad choices a year vs. one bad choice every two years. That's more than a 6x of and making bad choices. And some of his choices are really bad. People who don't show much legal knowledge or understanding of how the judicial system even works. People who have terrible temperament but have great relationships with the right people. Conservatives used to scream about activist judges, but that's exactly whom he wants to appoint and has succeeded to in many cases
again, unless you're going to go through each and every one of the 9 (and I've already figured out to my own satisfaction that Justin Walker is qualified enough) on a specific case-by-case basis, I'm fine with the other 178 Trump judges ("As of December 20, 2019, the United States Senate has confirmed 187 Article III judges nominated by President Trump,") that have been ABA-deemed qualified to form an overall judgement that Trump's appointees have generally been excellent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump and now it's game time. so signing off for now
game hasn't started yet. here's a piece about Steven Grasz that suggests much of the controversy around his nomination was political. http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/standing_committee_on_federal_judiciary_not_qualified_rating excerpt: Sens. Jim Inhofe and James Lankford of Oklahoma have both announced their continued support for Goodwin’s nomination. “While we recognize the evaluation given by the American Bar Association, the fact remains that the ABA uses limited criteria and their opinion should not impede a successful Senate Judiciary Committee hearing,” the senators stated in a press release on Oct. 3. “We deeply appreciate that the White House remains steadfast in their nomination of Judge Goodwin, and look forward to him receiving a full and fair consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee. We stand by Judge Goodwin and his nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.” Sens. Deb Fischer and Ben Sasse of Nebraska had both supported Grasz’s nomination to the 8th Circuit. Sasse has made a public statement reiterating his support for Grasz in the wake of the “not qualified” rating. “It’s sad that the ABA would contort their ratings process to try to tarnish Steve’s professional reputation in order to drive a political agenda,” Sasse said in a statement quoted by the Omaha World-Herald. “In more than a decade as chief deputy attorney general, whether he was litigating cases before the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington or the Nebraska Supreme Court in Lincoln, Republicans and Democrats alike knew that Steve represented Nebraska with integrity and professionalism.” and no, I don't know better than the ABA. Don't put words in my mouth or attempt to read my mind.
So politicians attacking a non-partisan institution? And you don't think it's the politicians are being political??? C'mon, at some point you have to just say you are on team Trump and finding the rational to support the cause. You can rationalize anything and believe anything these guys say. They will always claim it's political when it's against them. Modern Era Nixon, "I didn't do anything wrong, it's all a political witch hunt"
It’s either this or “yeah but Hillary”!!! I’m like wth are you talking about? Why is this your go to?
