Lawrence VanDyke - another "Not Qualified" nominee

BoyNextDoor

I hate liars
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Posts
14,158
Another stooge of a Trump judicial nominee.

From the ABA:


Mr. VanDyke is a highly educated lawyer with nearly 14 years of experience in
appellate law, including one year as a law clerk, an associate in a law firm, and as a
Solicitor General for over five-plus years, first in Montana and then Nevada, two states
in the Ninth Circuit where he would serve if confirmed. The Committee was tasked with
balancing Mr. VanDyke’s accomplishments with strong evidence that supports a “Not
Qualified” rating.

Mr. VanDyke’s accomplishments are offset by the assessments of interviewees that
Mr. VanDyke is arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-today practice including procedural rules. There was a theme that the nominee lacks
humility, has an “entitlement” temperament, does not have an open mind, and does not
always have a commitment to being candid and truthful.
Some interviewees raised concerns about whether Mr. VanDyke would be fair to
persons who are gay, lesbian, or otherwise part of the LGBTQ community. Mr. VanDyke
would not say affirmatively that he would be fair to any litigant before him, notably
members of the LGBTQ community.

Even though Mr. VanDyke is clearly smart, comments were made that in some oral
arguments he missed issues fundamental to the analysis of the case. There were reports
that his preparation and performance were lacking in some cases in which he did not have
a particular personal or political interest


And he is a cry baby.
 
Reported. Nobody on the General Board deserves to be doxxed.
Not even HisArpy.

I got yer back, Timmeh! :cool:
 
The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated Ninth Circuit nominee Lawrence VanDyke “not qualified” on the grounds that he is “arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules.” The committee’s evidence for these charges is that — wait for it — some unnamed interviewees said so. That’s it. The ABA provides no verifiable examples of Mr. VanDyke’s allegedly poor character and no on-the-record statements from witnesses. This a textbook example of hearsay evidence that would not be admissible in court. That an association of lawyers, of all people, would expect it to be taken seriously is very dispiriting.

Of course, the Senate is not conducting a criminal trial when it decides on VanDyke’s nomination, but I see no reason why hearsay should be given any weight, as the same concerns about the truthfulness and neutrality of second-hand information are still present. In fact, due to their political nature, confirmation hearings seem especially susceptible to biased rumor-mongering. If there really are witnesses who have found VanDyke to be “arrogant, lazy” etc., let them testify to that fact themselves, under oath, in an open hearing where their reliability can be assessed.

Unless that happens, the Senate should handle the ABA’s “evidence” in the same manner that a judge would in a criminal trial: discard it.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/when-did-the-aba-start-endorsing-hearsay-evidence/
 
I don't remember you doing any threads like this during the Obama Administration...

How fucking qualified to you need to be to work in government?

~~ and ~~

where are you supposed to earn that qualification? Harvard???
 
Because is base is slipping.


Down significantly among suburban men, a net-positive approval rating of 51-to-39 percent to a net-negative of 42 percent approve, 48 percent disapprove. That's a net change of down 18 percentage points.
Down a net of 13 points among white evangelicals, from 73-to-17 percent approve to 66-to-23 percent approve.
Down a net of 10 points among Republicans, from 90-to-7 percent approve to 83-to-10 percent.
Down marginally among white men without a college degree, from 56-to-34 percent approve to 50-to-35 percent approve, a net change downward of 7 points.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/17/685539207/poll-trump-approval-down-slips-with-base

Ms. White, a Florida televangelist, is being brought into the Trump administration to help shore up his evangelical base — even though some Christians consider her beliefs heretical.

Donald J. Trump has a televangelist from Florida: Paula White, an outsider whose populist brand of Christianity mirrors Mr. Trump’s conquest of the Republican Party. And she is in many ways a quintessentially Trump figure: a television preacher, married three times, who lives in a mansion.

Among Christians, however, Ms. White is a divisive figure. Her association with the belief that God wants followers to find wealth and health — commonly called the prosperity gospel — is highly unorthodox in the faith and considered heretical by many. And experts on religion in politics said that Ms. White’s ascendancy was unlike any other relationship between a president and a faith adviser in modern times.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...er-disinformation.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
 
Because is base is slipping.




https://www.npr.org/2019/01/17/685539207/poll-trump-approval-down-slips-with-base

Ms. White, a Florida televangelist, is being brought into the Trump administration to help shore up his evangelical base — even though some Christians consider her beliefs heretical.



https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...er-disinformation.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Couldn't find an appropriate thread to drop your DNC talking point drivel into?

Don't have the stones to start yet another thread where you're going to be eviscerated for not being able to understand or defend "your" position on one of these idiotic talking points?

You are rapidly devolving into a KimgOrfeo/miles/JaFo spam bot delivery boy.
 
Back
Top