Trump Judiciary nominee falls on face in questioning

[haymarket]

You have to see this to believe the utter lack of knowledge and experience a nominee to the Federal bench has. And the man questioning him is Senator John Kennedy a Republican from Louisiana who destroys him as thoroughly as an invading barbarian army sacking a defenseless village.

Trump judicial nominee can't answer basic law questions - CNN Video

What in heavens name is the process in the Trump White House for a nomination to the federal bench when flows like the are the nominee?

please forgive the short vodka commercial preceding the video - at least its good vodka and from France - not Russia

 

[joG]

You have to see this to believe the utter lack of knowledge and experience a nominee to the Federal bench has. And the man questioning him is Senator John Kennedy a Republican from Louisiana who destroys him as thoroughly as an invading barbarian army sacking a defenseless village.

Trump judicial nominee can't answer basic law questions - CNN Video

What in heavens name is the process in the Trump White House for a nomination to the federal bench when flows like the are the nominee?

please forgive the short vodka commercial preceding the video - at least its good vodka and from France - not Russia

I've never really liked armies that sacked defenseless villages.

 

[roughdraft274]

Absolutely amazing. This is what Trumps america looks like. They are probably good little boys that follow orders and that's more important than qualifications or experience or anything else.

 

[JasperL]

You have to see this to believe the utter lack of knowledge and experience a nominee to the Federal bench has. And the man questioning him is Senator John Kennedy a Republican from Louisiana who destroys him as thoroughly as an invading barbarian army sacking a defenseless village.

Trump judicial nominee can't answer basic law questions - CNN Video

What in heavens name is the process in the Trump White House for a nomination to the federal bench when flows like the are the nominee?

please forgive the short vodka commercial preceding the video - at least its good vodka and from France - not Russia

That was amazing video. He's totally and completely unqualified to be a judge. The questions sounded almost like "gotcha" questions to me because I'm also unqualified to be a trial judge, but I read an explanation last night, and those were BASIC Trial Law for Dummies points he was clueless about. Seems impossible he can competently conduct any trial. He'll need a little transmitter in his ear and some bright recent law graduate in a booth feeding him answers as lawyers make objections, etc.

So given NO ONE looking for the most qualified conservative to have this lifetime seat would nominate this guy, the question is what did this incompetent do to earn a position that a few dozen conservative lawyers in my little city are more qualified to do than he is? In other words, he's being paid for services rendered - what services did he provide behind the scenes to earn this payoff. Which big donor's interests did he somehow serve in his previous position with FEC that were extraordinary enough that he could demand and get a lifetime job on the bench?

 

[haymarket]

That was amazing video. He's totally and completely unqualified to be a judge. The questions sounded almost like "gotcha" questions to me because I'm also unqualified to be a trial judge, but I read an explanation last night, and those were BASIC Trial Law for Dummies points he was clueless about. Seems impossible he can competently conduct any trial. He'll need a little transmitter in his ear and some bright recent law graduate in a booth feeding him answers as lawyers make objections, etc.

So given NO ONE looking for the most qualified conservative to have this lifetime seat would nominate this guy, the question is what did this incompetent do to earn a position that a few dozen conservative lawyers in my little city are more qualified to do than he is? In other words, he's being paid for services rendered - what services did he provide behind the scenes to earn this payoff. Which big donor's interests did he somehow serve in his previous position with FEC that were extraordinary enough that he could demand and get a lifetime job on the bench?

One might imagine the only question he was asked by Trump was if he will approve the right wing Trump agenda. If the answer was YES - he got the nomination.

 

[JasperL]

One might imagine the only question he was asked by Trump was if he will approve the right wing Trump agenda. If the answer was YES - he got the nomination.

That much seems obvious, but it's still a mystery why with so many CONSERVATIVE lawyers, litigators, out there who are definitely qualified to sit on the bench that this incompetent got the nod.

 

[tres borrachos]

One might imagine the only question he was asked by Trump was if he will approve the right wing Trump agenda. If the answer was YES - he got the nomination.

Well, that and "Do you have any Mexican ancestry?"

 

[Paperview]

...only the best.

 

[Paperview]

Interesting read here on just how bad that display was...

"I'm not sure non-attorneys fully understand how horrifying this video clip really is, so allow me to explain a few things about this...

There are not “gotcha” questions being asked. For instance, Sen. Kennedy asks about a “motion in limine.”
A motion in limine is a request to exclude evidence which a party feels is too prejudicial. Every single trial in America features motions in limine as the first order of business. This is first year law school moot court stuff.
Kennedy also asks about the Pullman and Younger abstention doctrines. Sounds fancy, but this is also federal court 101.
The Pullman doctrine says that federal courts cannot rule on a state statute until a state court has had the opportunity to do so.
The Younger doctrine prohibits a federal court from hearing a civil rights claim brought by someone who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim in state court.

Kennedy also asks about the “Daubert standard,” which is the test the court must apply to all expert witnesses to assess the reliability of scientific testimony.
From the standpoint of a trial judge, this stuff is the very opposite of esoterica.
There is simply no way a person like this could possibly operate day-to-day on the bench. Every single hearing will end with: “Okay, I’ll take that under advisement.”
And then some snot-nosed law clerk with an autographed picture of Sebastian Gorka on his desk will be the one who actually writes judicial opinions.
And I can’t even imagine a trial in this guy’s courtroom. It would be an absolute goat rodeo.
Ultimately, all we are seeing is the appointment of a rubber stamp for the most twisted mutant law firms in America.

But the damage to litigants in his courtroom due to sheer incompetence is hard to fathom."

https://twitter.com/RespectableLaw/status/941557383247073280

 

[AlbqOwl]

You have to see this to believe the utter lack of knowledge and experience a nominee to the Federal bench has. And the man questioning him is Senator John Kennedy a Republican from Louisiana who destroys him as thoroughly as an invading barbarian army sacking a defenseless village.

Trump judicial nominee can't answer basic law questions - CNN Video

What in heavens name is the process in the Trump White House for a nomination to the federal bench when flows like the are the nominee?

please forgive the short vodka commercial preceding the video - at least its good vodka and from France - not Russia

The man has no experience in criminal law as he was quite forthcoming in explaining. Until my retirment from the business world, I worked with excellent lawyers all the time that might not have been able to answer those questions either because they did not practice criminal law. But any lawyer put in a position in which he is unfamiliar with the law--and that happens fairly frequently with any busy attorney--will quickly bring himself up to speed with whatever terminology or fine points of the law will apply. Many times I would have a question for one of my consulting attorneys that they would have to research in order to give me an answer.

I don't know if this guy would make a good federal judge or not, but he has a really REALLY impressive resume including experience that would serve him well on many of the issues that come before a federal judiciary:

Petersen graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. in philosophy from Brigham Young University in 1996. He also received an Associate of Science with high honors from Utah Valley State College.[3] Petersen received his Juris Doctor in 1999 from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was a member of the Virginia Law Review.

Petersen was nominated to the Federal Election Commission by President George W. Bush on June 12, 2008, and unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on June 24, 2008. He served as Chairman for 2010 and 2016.

From 2005 until his appointment to the FEC, Petersen served as Republican chief counsel to the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Prior, Petersen served as counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration. During his tenure, Petersen was involved in the crafting of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) and the House–Senate negotiations that culminated in HAVA's passage. From 1999 to 2002, Petersen practiced election and campaign finance law at Wiley Rein LLP in Washington, D.C.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_S._Petersen

 

[poweRob]

You have to see this to believe the utter lack of knowledge and experience a nominee to the Federal bench has. And the man questioning him is Senator John Kennedy a Republican from Louisiana who destroys him as thoroughly as an invading barbarian army sacking a defenseless village.

Trump judicial nominee can't answer basic law questions - CNN Video

What in heavens name is the process in the Trump White House for a nomination to the federal bench when flows like the are the nominee?

please forgive the short vodka commercial preceding the video - at least its good vodka and from France - not Russia

Trump surrounds himself with only the best people.

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.​

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

Linkypoo...​

 

[Fearandloathing]

One might imagine the only question he was asked by Trump was if he will approve the right wing Trump agenda. If the answer was YES - he got the nomination.

This is a joke right?

A judicial nominee who does not know what is a "motion in limine"? He doesn't watch TV? Has there ever been a movie involving a trial where one or another tries to have the other's evidence not heard.

The closest I've even been to a law book is seeing one on a shelf and even I know that.

It has to be a joke

 

[Dragonfly]

But any lawyer put in a position in which he is unfamiliar with the law--and that happens fairly frequently with any busy attorney--will quickly bring himself up to speed with whatever terminology or fine points of the law will apply.

Geee...you'd think he might prepare himself for being questioned by Senators about some basic law stuff in order to become a god damned judge. Maybe.

:roll:

 

[calamity]

You have to see this to believe the utter lack of knowledge and experience a nominee to the Federal bench has. And the man questioning him is Senator John Kennedy a Republican from Louisiana who destroys him as thoroughly as an invading barbarian army sacking a defenseless village.

Trump judicial nominee can't answer basic law questions - CNN Video

What in heavens name is the process in the Trump White House for a nomination to the federal bench when flows like the are the nominee?

please forgive the short vodka commercial preceding the video - at least its good vodka and from France - not Russia

More proof that Republicans are idiots.

 

[calamity]

The man has no experience in criminal law as he was quite forthcoming in explaining. Until my retirment from the business world, I worked with excellent lawyers all the time that might not have been able to answer those questions either because they did not practice criminal law. But any lawyer put in a position in which he is unfamiliar with the law--and that happens fairly frequently with any busy attorney--will quickly bring himself up to speed with whatever terminology or fine points of the law will apply. Many times I would have a question for one of my consulting attorneys that they would have to research in order to give me an answer.

I don't know if this guy would make a good federal judge or not, but he has a really REALLY impressive resume including experience that would serve him well on many of the issues that come before a federal judiciary:

Petersen graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. in philosophy from Brigham Young University in 1996. He also received an Associate of Science with high honors from Utah Valley State College.[3] Petersen received his Juris Doctor in 1999 from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was a member of the Virginia Law Review.

Petersen was nominated to the Federal Election Commission by President George W. Bush on June 12, 2008, and unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on June 24, 2008. He served as Chairman for 2010 and 2016.

From 2005 until his appointment to the FEC, Petersen served as Republican chief counsel to the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Prior, Petersen served as counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration. During his tenure, Petersen was involved in the crafting of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) and the House–Senate negotiations that culminated in HAVA's passage. From 1999 to 2002, Petersen practiced election and campaign finance law at Wiley Rein LLP in Washington, D.C.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_S._Petersen

And the apologists arrive

 

[Visbek]

The man has no experience in criminal law as he was quite forthcoming in explaining. Until my retirment from the business world, I worked with excellent lawyers all the time that might not have been able to answer those questions either because they did not practice criminal law. But any lawyer put in a position in which he is unfamiliar with the law--and that happens fairly frequently with any busy attorney--will quickly bring himself up to speed with whatever terminology or fine points of the law will apply.

Sorry, but that's just nonsense.

He's never seen the inside of a courtroom. He doesn't know how it operates. He doesn't know concepts he should have learned in 1L. He's never even taken a deposition on his own.

It's like a doctor saying "I don't know what a 'bile duct' is, but I can research it and get back to you."

You cannot go from "zero court experience" to "qualified federal judge" in one week by reading a book. If that was the case, then he should have boned up before he went before the committee.

Many times I would have a question for one of my consulting attorneys that they would have to research in order to give me an answer.

Then either you had complex questions, or a bad attorney.

I don't know if this guy would make a good federal judge or not, but he has a really REALLY impressive resume including experience that would serve him well on many of the issues that come before a federal judiciary...

Sure, if you have no idea what usually qualifies someone to be nominated as a federal judge.

Hint: A key factor is trying cases, in actual courtrooms.

 

[Visbek]

Trump surrounds himself with only the best people.

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.​

Kennedy was handling him with kid gloves, too.

What I want to know is if the committee gave Peterson the green light.

 

[JasperL]

The man has no experience in criminal law as he was quite forthcoming in explaining. Until my retirment from the business world, I worked with excellent lawyers all the time that might not have been able to answer those questions either because they did not practice criminal law. But any lawyer put in a position in which he is unfamiliar with the law--and that happens fairly frequently with any busy attorney--will quickly bring himself up to speed with whatever terminology or fine points of the law will apply. Many times I would have a question for one of my consulting attorneys that they would have to research in order to give me an answer.

That's true - I've worked with lawyers for all my career and they and tax accountants often have to research particular questions. But that's different than what is happening here. A closer equivalent is a company hiring a lawyer for a LIFETIME JOB to oversee the tax practice of a firm heavily involved in the M&A field who doesn't know the difference between so-called A, B or C reorganizations. It's not that a smart guy can't learn that stuff, but why in the hell would you hire someone who is totally ignorant in the relevant law when there are thousands of candidates who have already acquired that expertise and are therefore better suited?

I don't know if this guy would make a good federal judge or not, but he has a really REALLY impressive resume including experience that would serve him well on many of the issues that come before a federal judiciary:

Petersen graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. in philosophy from Brigham Young University in 1996. He also received an Associate of Science with high honors from Utah Valley State College.[3] Petersen received his Juris Doctor in 1999 from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was a member of the Virginia Law Review.

Petersen was nominated to the Federal Election Commission by President George W. Bush on June 12, 2008, and unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on June 24, 2008. He served as Chairman for 2010 and 2016.

From 2005 until his appointment to the FEC, Petersen served as Republican chief counsel to the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Prior, Petersen served as counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration. During his tenure, Petersen was involved in the crafting of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) and the House–Senate negotiations that culminated in HAVA's passage. From 1999 to 2002, Petersen practiced election and campaign finance law at Wiley Rein LLP in Washington, D.C.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_S._Petersen

All that is fine and good, but the problem is there are 1,000s at least of conservative lawyers, with impeccable credentials, who are qualified for a lifetime appointment, and this guy just is not one of them. He's being rewarded for being a good Republican and doing the bidding of powerful people, or maybe he's just well connected and it's garden variety nepotism. But there really is no reason to give a lifetime job to this guy who just doesn't know the basics.

And as others have pointed out, including some conservatives, the other thing his embarrassing performance indicates is a total lack of respect for the process. Here's David French, NRO:

It's not just a lack of experience, it's a lack of interest and preparation. Early in my career one of my bosses was a Bush nominee. He spent weeks prepping for his short hearing. This guy could have avoided all this embarrassment with an afternoon of study.

I've been involved in helping prep people for Congressional hearings as well, and it took weeks of work. It doesn't appear this guy did HOURS of work getting ready for this hearing, which is just arrogance mixed with laziness and contempt for the process and the people involved. It's even worse because this guy has been in D.C. for years and has to know better, and he still effectively said, "F you Senators. I've got this and I won't bother dignifying your hearings with honest prep."

 

[AlbqOwl]

Geee...you'd think he might prepare himself for being questioned by Senators about some basic law stuff in order to become a god damned judge. Maybe.

:roll:

Maybe. But since most matters that federal judges handle are not criminal matters, maybe he didn't think it was necessary at all.

 

[Dragonfly]

Maybe. But since most matters that federal judges handle are not criminal matters, maybe he didn't think it was necessary at all.

Then he's a moron who obviously doesn't deserve to be a life-time judge.

Come on, if this was a nominee of Obama's you'd be throwing hissy fits until the next election.

Have a spine and admit this is an asinine situation that's truly embarrassing.

 

[AlbqOwl]

That's true - I've worked with lawyers for all my career and they and tax accountants often have to research particular questions. But that's different than what is happening here. A closer equivalent is a company hiring a lawyer for a LIFETIME JOB to oversee the tax practice of a firm heavily involved in the M&A field who doesn't know the difference between so-called A, B or C reorganizations. It's not that a smart guy can't learn that stuff, but why in the hell would you hire someone who is totally ignorant in the relevant law when there are thousands of candidates who have already acquired that expertise and are therefore better suited?



All that is fine and good, but the problem is there are 1,000s at least of conservative lawyers, with impeccable credentials, who are qualified for a lifetime appointment, and this guy just is not one of them. He's being rewarded for being a good Republican and doing the bidding of powerful people, or maybe he's just well connected and it's garden variety nepotism. But there really is no reason to give a lifetime job to this guy who just doesn't know the basics.

And as others have pointed out, including some conservatives, the other thing his embarrassing performance indicates is a total lack of respect for the process. Here's David French, NRO:



I've been involved in helping prep people for Congressional hearings as well, and it took weeks of work. It doesn't appear this guy did HOURS of work getting ready for this hearing, which is just arrogance mixed with laziness and contempt for the process and the people involved. It's even worse because this guy has been in D.C. for years and has to know better, and he still effectively said, "F you Senators. I've got this and I won't bother dignifying your hearings with honest prep."

I am pretty sure that no lawyer practicing law or who has ever practiced law is up on all aspects of the law. The attorneys who handle insurance and work comp law and such as that don't really have a clue re the details of estate and tax law or criminal law for that matter. But sometimes they have looked it up for me when I had a question outside of their area of expertise. Most especially when I was hit with some point of the law that just didn't ring quite true to me. A federal judge is much more likely to be dealing with matters of election processes or arbitrating squabbles re application of codes or such as that and will only occasionally handle criminal law. So a lawyer most experienced in criminal law might not be the best choice either. But any lawyer with a good track record for ethics and meticulousness application of the existing law and sufficient experience to be seasoned should be eligible for a judgeship.

Kinds of Cases Heard by Federal Courts
In the big picture, federal courts can only decide very limited types of cases:

Federal Questions: Federal Courts can decide any case that considers federal law. This includes constitutional law, federal crimes, some military law, intellectual property (patents, copyrights, etc.), securities laws, and any other case involving a law that the U.S. Congress has passed.
Diversity: Cases between residents of two different states can go to federal court as long as there is more than $75,000 in dispute. Federal courts can also hear cases between two people who have land grants from different states, or between the states themselves. States can sue each other for a number of reasons, but often these cases are over rights to land or waterways. When this happens, states can skip the trial court and go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Treaties and Diplomats: Cases that affect or could affect the U.S.'s standing with other countries, including cases addressing treaties with other countries. This includes cases involving ambassadors and public ministers in the U.S. and abroad.
U.S. Government Cases: For example, if you wanted to sue the FBI, you would file suit in federal court, but if you wanted to sue your local sheriff, your state court will take that case.
Admiralty: Cases that involve navigable water bodies in and around the U.S., including the oceans, rivers, and great lakes.​

What Kinds of Cases Can Federal Courts Decide? - FindLaw

 

[Paperview]

...

Is there any better example of what the Trump Cult begets?

 

[Mr Person]

The man has no experience in criminal law as he was quite forthcoming in explaining. Until my retirment from the business world, I worked with excellent lawyers all the time that might not have been able to answer those questions either because they did not practice criminal law. But any lawyer put in a position in which he is unfamiliar with the law--and that happens fairly frequently with any busy attorney--will quickly bring himself up to speed with whatever terminology or fine points of the law will apply. Many times I would have a question for one of my consulting attorneys that they would have to research in order to give me an answer.

I don't know if this guy would make a good federal judge or not, but he has a really REALLY impressive resume including experience that would serve him well on many of the issues that come before a federal judiciary:

Petersen graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. in philosophy from Brigham Young University in 1996. He also received an Associate of Science with high honors from Utah Valley State College.[3] Petersen received his Juris Doctor in 1999 from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was a member of the Virginia Law Review.

Petersen was nominated to the Federal Election Commission by President George W. Bush on June 12, 2008, and unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on June 24, 2008. He served as Chairman for 2010 and 2016.

From 2005 until his appointment to the FEC, Petersen served as Republican chief counsel to the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Prior, Petersen served as counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration. During his tenure, Petersen was involved in the crafting of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) and the House–Senate negotiations that culminated in HAVA's passage. From 1999 to 2002, Petersen practiced election and campaign finance law at Wiley Rein LLP in Washington, D.C.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_S._Petersen

That is quite literally the only useful part of your post.

Everything he was asked is basic stuff someone appointed to be a judge should know regardless of what their background is. A first year law student should be able to answer those questions.


As you say, you don't know. What was the point of posting if you don't have any idea of what you're posting about? Trump nominated him, so some kind of defense/deflection is required?

 

[JasperL]

I am pretty sure that no lawyer practicing law or who has ever practiced law is up on all aspects of the law. The attorneys who handle insurance and work comp law and such as that don't really have a clue re the details of estate and tax law or criminal law for that matter. But sometimes they have looked it up for me when I had a question outside of their area of expertise. Most especially when I was hit with some point of the law that just didn't ring quite true to me. A federal judge is much more likely to be dealing with matters of election processes or arbitrating squabbles re application of codes or such as that and will only occasionally handle criminal law. So a lawyer most experienced in criminal law might not be the best choice either. But any lawyer with a good track record for ethics and meticulousness application of the existing law and sufficient experience to be seasoned should be eligible for a judgeship.

Kinds of Cases Heard by Federal Courts
In the big picture, federal courts can only decide very limited types of cases:

Federal Questions: Federal Courts can decide any case that considers federal law. This includes constitutional law, federal crimes, some military law, intellectual property (patents, copyrights, etc.), securities laws, and any other case involving a law that the U.S. Congress has passed.
Diversity: Cases between residents of two different states can go to federal court as long as there is more than $75,000 in dispute. Federal courts can also hear cases between two people who have land grants from different states, or between the states themselves. States can sue each other for a number of reasons, but often these cases are over rights to land or waterways. When this happens, states can skip the trial court and go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Treaties and Diplomats: Cases that affect or could affect the U.S.'s standing with other countries, including cases addressing treaties with other countries. This includes cases involving ambassadors and public ministers in the U.S. and abroad.
U.S. Government Cases: For example, if you wanted to sue the FBI, you would file suit in federal court, but if you wanted to sue your local sheriff, your state court will take that case.
Admiralty: Cases that involve navigable water bodies in and around the U.S., including the oceans, rivers, and great lakes.​

What Kinds of Cases Can Federal Courts Decide? - FindLaw

But it has nothing to do with "criminal" law but litigation in general. In the real world, no one with any sense and with any issue worth litigating would hire this guy to argue a SIMPLE motion in court, much less run a trial, because he is incompetent in the basics of courtroom rules of practice and procedure, which is a legal specialty all its own. Being an expert in the issues being argued in court matters a lot less than knowing what is and isn't allowed in that courtroom, rules of evidence, standing, etc. So in any law firm bigger than a handful or so, you have litigators, and you have everyone else. The "everyone else" doesn't appear in court except in backup roles to the litigators, the experts in courtroom practice and procedure.

Just for example, I do a lot of work in the estate and gift arena, and the lawyer I work with is in court ALL THE TIME, but unless the issue is totally routine, he hires a litigator to handle every single trial, and the one he normally picks is far less experienced in tax but he knows the Federal (and Tennessee) Rules of Civil Procedure like the back of his hand.

This guy is being nominated for a lifetime seat on the bench and apparently hasn't the foggiest idea about the basics of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, etc. You're just ignoring that, that he's qualified for a lot of jobs, just NOT Federal District Court judge. It's that simple, and it's a mystery why the Trump administration picked a person so obviously unqualified and, importantly IMO, completely uninterested in preparing for a hearing in which his total and complete non-qualifications for that job are at issue.

 

[Paperview]

It is so basic.

It's like asking a doctor what's does diastolic & systolic pressure mean...and him responding: let me get back to you on that.