Wow, I felt really badly for this guy Petersen. As a Trump supporter I cannot fathom what skills this man has as a Trial Judge for life based on these wholly un-qualified answers. This is staggering. Imaging interviewing an aircraft mechanic who has never flown or worked on planes. Or a surgeon who has never touched a scalpel. I want Trump to nominate great legal minds and Judges who have ethics. This guy has no legal qualifications as far as I can tell from this scathing interview.

As I listened to this I thought - "I'm a nobody and my resume crushes this guy's experience" and was embarrassed for him he couldn't answer fundamentally simple questions any Judge should be able to answer or prepared to answer.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-ne ... -knowledge
Trump Judge Nominee Fails Basic Test of Law Knowledge
By Joseph P. Williams, Staff Writer


I say this as a Trump supporter - C'mon man... this lawyer is not even close to qualified.

Fair enough, now let's put those questions to the DC cout of appeals roster.

Judging by the rulings of the ninth circus, judicial experience or knowledge is not required.

Ask him if he knows what jury nullification is.

I voted for Trump and now regret it. All he's done is put unqualified dipshits in positions they have no business being in, in the first place. I'm still wondering how or why Betsy DeVos was given her job. As for what I do for a living. Having Raymond Martinez as the head of the FMCSA is nothing but a bunch of shit baggery. That guy is very much against the drivers. It would be better if Trump would nominate people who actually know what the fuck goes on in the business side of things instead of the revenue collection side. Raymond is also the same chode who fucked up the NY Highway Use Tax.

True

Leadcounsel, I'm glad to hear your perspective on this. I heard pieces of the hearing on the radio and it sure sounded horrific, but since I'm not a lawyer (or a judge!), I didn't really know if the questions were relevant. We hear a lot of shit from the media that's not put into perspective, so I was wondering if this was one of those situations.

I voted for and support Trump on nearly everything. These questions were by a GOP member, very fair, and extremely relevant.

I wouldn't hire this guy as a trial counsel. I would give him a job carrying my stuff to court and sitting next to me to learn. I certainly wouldn't hire him as trial Judge, and the person that recommended this to Trump should be fired for incompetence or seriously questioned....

But being a trial lawyer is a necessary pre-requisite for being a trial judge. I cannot fathom hiring a family doctor as a brain surgeon - which is pretty much what appointing a desk lawyer to be a trial judge is akin to.

Being a trial lawyer - which I am - is a very precise skill set. I would be very disheartened if I had more trial experience than my Judge. Or if I gave the Judge a Motion in Limine and the Judge asked what that was for... (which Peterson could not even answer what a Motion in Limine is).

I bet if you asked some non-lawyer what a Motion in Limine is they could guess the right answer. It is what it sounds like. It's a motion to limit evidence presentation/consideration. The fact that Petersen couldn't answer this simple question is frankly staggering.

The lack of trial experience for a trial judge position is just staggering to me.

Imagine taking your car to the dealership to get a new tire. You tell the mechanic, "I need a new tire." And he says, "what's a tire?" And you find out he's never changed a tire before. That is the level of rudimentary understanding we are talking about here.

As for qualifications there are tiers of course. But they are not an "either-or" type.
A trial judge MUST have total integrity, but MUST also understand the law, precedent, decorum, simple principles, courtroom mechanics, etc.

I cannot imagine the **** show of trying a case before a Judge who doesn't understand fundamentals. Judges often have to make quick and correct decisions and rulings on motions, objections, and understand to sua sponte (spontaneously) allow or disallow evidence, and correct counsel when they are wrong and so forth. It is extremely important and technical work. In a typical trial, there might easily be 50 critical rulings a Judge must make from the bench to move the trial along. Those need to be fast and correct. Imagine the speed of an MLB game if the Umpire had to review the footage to call balls and strikes. A game would take a month.

Imagine hiring a lifelong Chicago Cubs fan who never played or Umbired baseball to Umpire the Cubs/Sox World Series. Gee, his bias on calling balls and strikes might very well effect the outcome, don't ya think?

Part of the problem with Judges is that they are appointed based on politics and not qualifications. Then they just rule what makes them happy and that creates terrible precedent. As someone that reads a lot of case law, I have seen Judges who twist logic as a clear method of making the case and facts fit their agenda. Sometimes I get quite angry about it because that sets horrible precedent.

For example, look at an Assault Weapons Case out of Maryland. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...kolbe-v-hogan/
Kolbe v. Hogan. It's a garbage case with Judges who don't know the first thing about law, history, or guns. The majority is obviously anti-gun and found a way to rule to uphold the AWB. No honest lawyer would rule how they did. But that's what happened and that's upheld a terrible law. Judicial activism must end.

LOL

Thanks for the writeup, LC. Very interesting.

I'm sure Trump didn't dig this this guy out of the population all by himself. Who recommended him? Fire that person!!

EDIT:

Sorry I missed LC writing

Same same.

+1.
So often a POTUS gets blamed for actions he takes based on flawed advice or flawed intelligence.
"The Buck Stops Here" is an excellent sentiment though, so he will take heat for those bad decisions.
The best leaders find competent (or better) people to surround themselves with.

Thanks, LC, for your input. That really helps!

Agree.