Thursday, November 16, 2017

Questionable Nominations to the Federal Judiciary

The President has nominated individuals to the federal judiciary whose qualifications are problematic at best.

Take Brett Talley. From New York magazine:

Brett J. Talley has practiced law for less than three years. He has never tried a case — or even argued a motion.

But he does write a spirited, far-right blog: Shortly after the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary, Talley described Barack Obama’s proposal to expand background checks and restrict rapid-fire weapons as “the greatest attack on our constitutional freedoms in our lifetime.” One month later, he endorsed the idea that Americans “will have to resort to arms when our other rights — of speech, press, assembly, representative government — fail to yield the desired results.” During the 2016 campaign he derided the Democratic nominee a (NPR).s “Hillary Rotten Clinton.”

So much for judicial temperament. You can read more here and here. And then there’s nominee Jeff Mateer. From The Hill:

President Trump's nominee for a federal judgeship in Texas once described transgender children as part of “Satan’s plan,” compared homosexuality to bestiality and advocated for gay conversion therapy.

You can read more here. These and other nominations are passing through the Senate Judiciary Committee on party line votes.

These future judges may be disappointed when they realize that most of their cases do not deal with hot button political issues, but with complex commercial and corporate disputes and run-of-the-mill criminal cases.

(ljs)

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_skills/2017/11/questionable-nominations-to-the-federal-judiciary.html

| Permalink

Comments

Post a comment