Just because you've seen 'My Cousin Vinny' doesn't qualify you to be a federal judge

[BoyNextDoor]

By Katherine Sayre ksayre@nola.com,
NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune

U.S. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., continued his criticism of a Trump administration federal judge nominee, telling WWL-TV Monday (Dec. 18) that watching the movie "My Cousin Vinny" does not qualify someone for the position.

Kennedy's comments came after he publicly grilled one of President Trump's judicial nominees last week during a hearing on Capitol Hill. Kennedy tossed out basic legal questions to nominee Matthew Petersen, who was stumped by the quiz and said he had never tried a case or argued a motion in court.


===============================

That is a real crack staff over there at the White House, led by Draft Dodging Donnie Himself, trying to reshape our judiciary.

Elections have consequences.

 

[BobBalouski]

Good thing, then, to become a top judge in this country, a Supreme, one must have litigation experience, at least.

 

[bebee]

yup

maybe he should just pick Her Pan Ick Cunts Like Soda Meyer and Cunts like FatKagon

 

[Hypoxia]

Good thing, then, to become a top judge in this country, a Supreme, one must have litigation experience, at least.

The US Constitution requires that President, Vice President, and members of both houses of Congress, be human. No such requirement exists for judges or justices. It's in the short Article III -- look it up.

Members of the judiciary may be robots, orang-utans, dolphins, slime molds, or rocks. Tromp's nominees seem to fall into the latter category, although it helps if they're campaign contributors, too.

 

[BobBalouski]

The US Constitution requires that President, Vice President, and members of both houses of Congress, be human. No such requirement exists for judges or justices. It's in the short Article III -- look it up.

I'll get on that, right after you manage to buy a clue from someone obviously other than your self-broadcasted, ignorant self.

 

[Sean]

Good thing, then, to become a top judge in this country, a Supreme, one must have litigation experience, at least.

Cite? As far as I'm aware, there are no stated legal requirements for becoming a SCOTUS judge.

 

[sr71plt]

Petersen has withdrawn. On to the next.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...thdraws/ar-BBGZGhQ?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

 

[Rightguide]

The US Constitution requires that President, Vice President, and members of both houses of Congress, be human. No such requirement exists for judges or justices. It's in the short Article III -- look it up.

Members of the judiciary may be robots, orang-utans, dolphins, slime molds, or rocks. Tromp's nominees seem to fall into the latter category, although it helps if they're campaign contributors, too.

And they can be enemy agents, communists, and just about anyone who hates the Constitution.

 

[LiamAnthony]

And they can be enemy agents, communists, and just about anyone who hates the Constitution.

When are your confirmation hearings scheduled?

I’d like to watch you set them straight.

 

[Hypoxia]

I'll get on that, right after you manage to buy a clue from someone obviously other than your self-broadcasted, ignorant self.

U.S. Constitution:

Art.I Sec.2: "No person shall be a Representative who shall not..."

Art.I Sec.3: "No person shall be a Senator who shall not..."

Art.II Sec.1: "No person except a natural born Citizen... shall be eligible for the Office of President..."

Art.III: {Alas, there is no mention of judicial requirements or personhood.}

I stand by my statement. Judges and justices need not be persons. If robots, cyborgs, dolphins, embryos, or giant redwoods are granted personhood, so much the better. But the Constitution does not preclude seating chunks of quartz or coprolites on SCOTUS. Some are already coprolites. Ick.

 

[phrodeau]

The US Constitution requires that President, Vice President, and members of both houses of Congress, be human. No such requirement exists for judges or justices. It's in the short Article III -- look it up.

Members of the judiciary may be robots, orang-utans, dolphins, slime molds, or rocks. Tromp's nominees seem to fall into the latter category, although it helps if they're campaign contributors, too.

Conservatives would confirm Fred the Fetus in a heartbeat.

 

[BobBalouski]

Cite? As far as I'm aware, there are no stated legal requirements for becoming a SCOTUS judge.

Once Hypnotized gets a clue, ask her to share with the obviously equally ignorant. In the meantime, share with us the Constitution's legal requirements which do "qualify" anyone "to be a federal judge"?

 

[BobBalouski]

U.S. Constitution:

Art.I Sec.2: "No person shall be a Representative who shall not..."

Art.I Sec.3: "No person shall be a Senator who shall not..."

Art.II Sec.1: "No person except a natural born Citizen... shall be eligible for the Office of President..."

Art.III: {Alas, there is no mention of judicial requirements or personhood.}

I stand by my statement. Judges and justices need not be persons. If robots, cyborgs, dolphins, embryos, or giant redwoods are granted personhood, so much the better. But the Constitution does not preclude seating chunks of quartz or coprolites on SCOTUS. Some are already coprolites. Ick.

So, what you're saying is that just because a potential federal jurist has no trial/courtroom litigation experience at all, that doesn't legally disqualify her or him from even being seated on the Supreme Court. Perhaps share your wikiwisdom with the thread starter since he obviously imagines litigation is such a qualifier?

 

[Hypoxia]

Once Hypnotized gets a clue, ask her to share with the obviously equally ignorant. In the meantime, share with us the Constitution's legal requirements which do "qualify" anyone "to be a federal judge"?

You really should read the Constitution. My pocket copy was published by the Cato Institute. In case you lack pockets, the entire Article III (on the judiciary) follows. Please point to any mention of qualifications or personhood.

Article III (Article 3 - Judicial)

Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2

1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State; —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3

1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Apology accepted in advance.

 

[BobBalouski]

You really should read the Constitution. My pocket copy was published by the Cato Institute. In case you lack pockets, the entire Article III (on the judiciary) follows. Please point to any mention of qualifications or personhood.
Apology accepted in advance.

Again: ask the thread starter why he imagines anyone needs to "qualify". And, ask your mirror about your pathetic ignorance since you're still so obviously lost, anyway.

 

[Noor]

I know a federal judge who loves My Cousin Vinny, but I think he mainly like this part.


Although he is totally qualified to be a Federal judge, watching "My cousin Vinny" doesn't qualify him for being an auto mechanic.

 

[Hypoxia]

Again: ask the thread starter why he imagines anyone needs to "qualify". And, ask your mirror about your pathetic ignorance since you're still so obviously lost, anyway.

Okay, you're a sandstone boulder crumbling in the desert sun. You're qualified for SCOTUS. Be kind.

 

[BobBalouski]

Point is, at it directly relates to the thread title and amateur observation op, courtroom litigation experience does not constitutionally "qualify" any potential jurist, exactly as the complete lack of it does not constitutionally disqualify any potential jurist.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Good thing, then, to become a top judge in this country, a Supreme, one must have litigation experience, at least.

He was unaware of basic legal terms. That is the issue. His lack of litigation experience was his excuse.

Once again, you're just making crap up.

You never did tell us what Bill Clinton was running for after he was accused of rape and sexual assault.

 

[about_average]

And they can be enemy agents, communists, and just about anyone who hates the Constitution.

Like the one confirmed in Oct who said she definitely wouldn't uphold it if it doesn't suit her?

“judges should be bound by their religious faith, not the law.” - Amy Coney Barrett

 

[Dinosaur1]

"Your clients are charged with 1st degree murder. How do they plead?"

"Well, your honor, my client......."

"Don't talk to me sittin' in that chair."

"He told me to sit here."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLValMc9XjU

 

[LiamAnthony]

Point is, at it directly relates to the thread title and amateur observation op, courtroom litigation experience does not constitutionally "qualify" any potential jurist, exactly as the complete lack of it does not constitutionally disqualify any potential jurist.

I for one am happy to see how well the herring fishery is doing.

I don't think I have seen even one news report about Matthew Petersen that says anything about his background and qualifications, so here it is:

https://www.fec.gov/about/leadership-and-structure/mathew-s-petersen/

 

[Rightguide]

By Katherine Sayre ksayre@nola.com,
NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune

U.S. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., continued his criticism of a Trump administration federal judge nominee, telling WWL-TV Monday (Dec. 18) that watching the movie "My Cousin Vinny" does not qualify someone for the position.

Kennedy's comments came after he publicly grilled one of President Trump's judicial nominees last week during a hearing on Capitol Hill. Kennedy tossed out basic legal questions to nominee Matthew Petersen, who was stumped by the quiz and said he had never tried a case or argued a motion in court.


===============================

That is a real crack staff over there at the White House, led by Draft Dodging Donnie Himself, trying to reshape our judiciary.

Elections have consequences.

And the ability to drool on the bench doesn't qualify one for the SCOTUS either.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

He was unaware of basic legal terms. That is the issue. His lack of litigation experience was his excuse.

Once again, you're just making crap up.

You never did tell us what Bill Clinton was running for after he was accused of rape and sexual assault.

I for one am happy to see how well the herring fishery is doing.

I don't think I have seen even one news report about Matthew Petersen that says anything about his background and qualifications, so here it is:

https://www.fec.gov/about/leadership-and-structure/mathew-s-petersen/

For what it's worth, I would not have been able to answer the questions that were posed to Peterson at the hearing either. But then, I've never attended law school.

Peterson was not only a lawyer, but apparently a rather expert one in the matter of federal elections law. As a practicing attorney even in that field AND as a result of simply having a law degree, it is hard to believe he would not have a passing familiarity with the terms he was challenged on. The lack of Constitutional qualifications for a federal judgeship is not the issue here. Congress is charged with exercising ITS judgment about a candidate's qualifications.

As a practical matter, Peterson failed miserably. It's hard to imagine why he would ever thought he could have passed.

 

[LiamAnthony]

Failing to survive that hatchet job doesn't mean the guy wasn't qualified.