Consider all the things.

That's interesting, because in general, Trump's judicial nominees have gotten a lot of praise from serious legal scholars who aren't inclined to partisanship, like Eugene Volokh. Sounds like they screwed up on this one. I expect the nominee won't get through the Senate. If that's the way it comes out, then the process worked the way it's supposed to.

There is no Constitutional requirement that a judge must be a lawyer. In fact, from what I've read, the Founders intended that at least some judges not be lawyers, in order to prevent trial law from becoming a self-reinforcing system (which is exactly what has happened). It's not up the the judge in a case to dig up laws and precedents; it's up to the lawyers representing the parties in a case to cite precedents that they think are applicable, and then the judge looks them up and studies them. And after all, we have a system of trial law today where nearly all judges are lawyers, and yet look at how many district/circuit rulings get overturned on appeal. So it's not like the judges we have are doing a bang-up job.

I'm not saying that Peterson should be confirmed, because he really does sound unqualified. But I am saying that being a member of the bar is neither necessary nor sufficient.

☑ Cousin Dave at December 15, 2017 6:43 AM

And let me affirm that, as this particular blog comment is being composed in the famous-but-loathsome "EST" time zone, it's a real hoot to see that CD was posting at 6:43am Pacific, which is a naturally-occurring, masculine, admirable realm for clockery both private and commercial. People in L.A. are still sleeping... That's fabulous.

Like Cousin Dave I'm mostly happy about this. Peterson probably won't get confirmed and that is a good thing. The process is working again and people are being held accountable. If this had happened five years ago you never would have heard about it. No reporter would have reported on it. And competence wasn't the deciding criteria. Loyalty to the party was. As for an incompetent getting nominated, that is nothing new. It is just be well publicized now.

No democratic senator is going to sharp shoot a nominee who is a member of their party.

Need I say more?

> It is just be well publicized now.

Is it just be because MainstreamMedia™? I mean, how do you really, really know that this even happened?

Don't ever, ever forget to remember the FakeNews®.

> Is it just be because MainstreamMedia™? I mean,
> how do you really, really know that this even
> happened?

The truth will set you free.

Liberty & truth are the least of your enthusiasms.

I thought the only requirement for a District Judge was declaring all actions by the other side to be unconstitutional.

No democratic senator is going to sharp shoot a nominee who is a member of their party.

This hardly seemed like sharpshooting to me — more like taking apart a chicken that already had been deboned.

At one point the guy actually squeaks like a toy mouse.

Well I suspect that what will happen to this one is that someone in the GOP will take Trump aside and say "don't force us to vote on this one", and after they repeat it enough times, Trump will quietly withdraw the nomination.

I post from the infamous and dreaded Central time zone, the place where all TV shows come on an hour earlier. It was a little weird coming back after five years of living on the East coast.

No democratic senator is going to sharp shoot a nominee who is a member of their party.

This hardly seemed like sharpshooting to me — more like taking apart a chicken that already had been deboned.

At one point the guy actually squeaks like a toy mouse.

Kevin at December 15, 2017 10:50

Find me a tape of any senator asking substantive questions about civil or criminal procedure of any federal judge nominee.

This spectacle is sick and sad. Most of Trump's judicial nominees have been stellar, as far as I know. As far as I'm concerned, this sick, sad person should either step aside or be voted down in the judiciary committee, to be replaced by one of Trump's more usual good nominees.

Our C+ President . . .

Waiting for Snoopy to give a detailed explanation why we should accept a poor Trump nominee, apart from his one reply above.

That's interesting, because in general, Trump's judicial nominees have gotten a lot of praise from serious legal scholars who aren't inclined to partisanship, like Eugene Volokh. Sounds like they screwed up on this one. I expect the nominee won't get through the Senate. If that's the way it comes out, then the process worked the way it's supposed to. ~ Cousin Dave at December 15, 2017 6:43 AM

Like Cousin Dave I'm mostly happy about this. ~ Ben at December 15, 2017 7:45 AM

Chances are that Trump, like most presidents, has never met the numerous nominees he puts up for the lower court judgeships. He submits a trusted-party recommendation.

This one backfired and, had it been any other president than Trump, would have been ignored or reported on an inside page below the fold.

Like Ben and Dave, I'm mostly satisfied with the imprint Trump is making on the judiciary, despite my reservations about his performance overall as president.

My take is this was some kind of pissing contest between a Senator and a federal bureaucrat. These guys have some history.

Find me a tape of any senator asking substantive questions about civil or criminal procedure of any federal judge nominee.

You just saw it.

Find me a tape of any senator asking substantive questions about civil or criminal procedure of any federal judge nominee.

You just saw it.

Kevin at December 15, 2017 12:51 PM

My point exactly. Have another one somewhere?

The dems dont care who they appoint as jusges, and considering some of the idiototic opinions coming out of particulalrly the 9th circut, it shows.

This dude will not be confirmed. A least a hundred democrats and probably the same number of republicans sitting on the bench somewhere are far worse. I guarantee it.

Well, the real question is will this nominee consider a "wise" Latina to be better than an old white guy?

See Conan that is the difference between you and me. The last couple of decades have really lowered my standards. Trump having a general positive impact on the judiciary is enough to make me happy. I know I should be more stringent. I should have higher expectations. But after both Bush and Obama this is more than I could hope for or expect.

https://youtu.be/XdlcgHB7L9s

Isab Says:

"Find me a tape of any senator asking substantive questions about civil or criminal procedure of any federal judge nominee."

As per usual you are a know nothing who assumes as fact something that you didn't even bother to research on your own.

It took me all of 5 minutes to locate this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vJYoAlfvqM

In it you will note that Senator Grassley asks nominee Crawford to expand upon his thoughts regarding mandatory minimum sentencing in criminal cases at time stamp 9:38.

Please stop just asserting things that aren't true because you happen to have a strong "feeling" about what the answer is.

You could have found this yourself very quickly.

My take is this was some kind of pissing contest between a Senator and a federal bureaucrat. These guys have some history.

Do you know this?

They attended the same law school, but obviously decades apart; I suspect Kennedy (whose legal career is formidable) knew a lightweight when he saw one.

> Please stop just asserting things

Simmer down, you busty schoolmarm, or we'll park you on an airliner (coach, middle, economy legroom) with a violent drunkard.

I hope you all enjoyed watching Roy Moore the pedobear tank. Never did a candidate so richly deserve to lose, and I predict the GOP pays dearly for backing him. WTF. Either Mo or Luther were a zillion times better, and yet that guy was the nominee. Good for Alabama for putting country over pedophile.

What were we talking about? Oh, yes, incompetent judges. Sure, Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton, and Obama all had political motivations behind their nominees. Of course. And of course some of their nominees were better-qualified than others. But none of them nominated people as unbelievably, obviously, jaw-droppingly unqualified as some of Trump's nominees (e.g., this one), nor ones with backgrounds as skeevy (pro-KKK blogging? Are you fucking kidding me?).

I had high hopes after Trump chose Gorsuch, who was indisputably extremely well-qualified and an impeccable choice. And yes, he had some other good nominees too. They are certainly not all disasters. But many are marginal at best (I've had some dealings with a couple of them over the years, and marginal is being kind) and a few of them have no other qualification other than being Trump sycophants.

I will back you a goddamn pie if you can find me anyone that any other president in the last 40 years nominated for the federal bench that was as anywhere close to being as unqualified as this moron.

BEFORE I went to law school I was more qualified than this clown. The questions he couldn't answer are really basic -- there's no way he could function an hour as a judge. And he must have *really* sucked at his law firm if he never so much as took a deposition on his own as an associate.

Jesus fucking christ on a stick.

Predictions:

-- 2018 and 2020 will not be pretty for the GOP, and are gonna suuuuuucccckkk for Bannon and Trump.

-- An unusually high number of cases by Trump's nominees are going to be reversed on appeal because they don't know what the fuck they're doing in the courtroom. I know some of y'all won't believe this, but it takes more than alt-right fervor to make a competent judge. A lot more.

-- Roy Moore's horse is gonna buck him. He can't ride for shit. Lordy, I hope there'll be a tape.

-- Jared is going down.

“My take is this was some kind of pissing contest between a Senator and a federal bureaucrat. These guys have some history.

Do you know this?”

Polite people don't attack another attorney in public and try and make them look bad. If you think they are truly unqualified, you have a priate chat with them and make sure their nomination never gets out of committee.

Kennedy has exposed himself as an ass, a smart one, but never the less an ass.

Nice people dont dont do this. You also dont burn your bridges with your party. That’s just stupid. Either Kennedy is a nut job or the level of annimosity he has for this guy is unhinged.

An unusually high number of cases by Trump's nominees are going to be reversed on appeal.... ~ Gail at December 15, 2017 5:19 PM

I suspect that will be driven as much by the politics of the appellate judges as by competence of the lower court judges.

Law, like any other profession, is driven by politics and cliques. And the dominant clique does not like outsiders crashing the party. Judges who did not come up through the usual routes or who do not subscribe to the accepted orthodoxy must be marginalized.

There is an expectation by the establishment that a judge should have a certain background.

I will back [sic] you a goddamn pie if you can find me anyone that any other president in the last 40 years nominated for the federal bench that was as anywhere close to being as unqualified as this moron. ~ Gail at December 15, 2017 5:19 PM

Moron?

While this guy's answers were alarmingly bad, his background and career do not indicate that he's a moron. Nor does not knowing answers to a law school quiz twenty years out of law school. I'm sure when you reach the twenty year alumnae milestone, there will be basic questions in areas not in your expertise that you will struggle to answer.

Peterson graduated UVA law school, where he was a member of the Law Review. He practiced campaign finance law (whatever that is) at one of the largest law firms in Washington, DC. He served as in-house counsel to committees in both the House and the Senate. He served on the Federal Election Commission (unanimously confirmed) and was the Chairman of the FEC for six years.

Even Senator Kennedy called him a "nice guy" and admitted that "Everybody says he’s smart and very honest."

Whatever his smarts, his lack of any litigation experience would seem to rightfully to preclude him from sitting on a District Court bench. Kennedy, a former law professor, made a point to Fox News that "The first time you step foot in a federal courtroom shouldn’t be as a referee. Those lawyers are experienced and sharp and they will tear you up."

I'm past the 20 year alumnae milestone, thanks. I know far MORE than I did twenty years ago, not less. And that wasn't some quiz of obscure legal trivia. That was a sampling of basic, everyday, routine shit a judge -- or just a lawyer walking into court -- needs to understand.

This person should never have been nominated. I have several friends who became judges under past administration and there is no way this guy would have made it to that point in the process at any time before Trump -- even if his utter lack of experience hadn't ruled him out (and it would have), his ignorance of basic information would have done so.

He was hustled through the process because Trump. He is not the only one.

You think it doesn't matter because you haven't spent much time in federal court. I have, and it does. Bigley, believe me. Sad.

Do you think that little question-and-answer session was some early part in the process, and there was just no knowing how inept he was before that? Wrong. By the time a candidate gets to that point in the process, there is normally some pretty deep digging -- many interviews not only with the candidate but all kinds of people who've worked with and known the candidate going all the way back to high school.

The Trump gang knew perfectly well how unqualified he was and did not care, because all they care about is his politics. That's why there was such limited time to question them.

I don't believe in political tests for judges (barring outrageous stuff like supporting the KKK or Antifa), but I do believe in vetting deeply for qualification. But Gorsuch, but Gorsuch. Yes, Gorsuch passes that test with flying colors. But a bunch of Trump's nominees do not. And in a busy district court, that matters yuuuugely.

Sad thing is Gail I can't trust you. You've already demonstrated that Trump drives you crazy. That you will exaggerate to the point of lying when he is involved. I wish I could believe you. But as long as Trump is involved you've already shown your words are worthless.

I'm past the 20 year alumnae milestone, thanks. I know far MORE than I did twenty years ago, not less. ~ Gail at December 16, 2017 9:22 AM

And yet I'm sure there are areas in which someone could drop a question or two on you that you would struggle to answer, areas of the law which have not been in your regular routine since law school; areas they might consider basic knowledge.

Doesn't make Peterson a "moron," just a guy who got nominated for a job outside his area of expertise. No one seems to be questioning his ability to decide a case within the law, just to understand some of the technical jargon used in litigation, jargon he should, admittedly, have at least boned up on if he is seeking a job in litigation.

I have several friends who became judges under past administration and there is no way this guy would have made it to that point in the process at any time before Trump ... He was hustled through the process because Trump. He is not the only one. ~ Gail at December 16, 2017 9:22 AM

The previous administration was backstopped by the ABA declaring its nominees acceptable, using a political barometer. The ABA has proven itself to be a highly politicized organization, to the point that the Bush (43) administration stopped asking its opinion on judicial nominees.

Admittedly, this has led to issues for Republican presidents as GOP nominees are no longer reviewed by a non-partisan professional organization (or even a partisan one).

In addition, let's consider the Trump administration mission to "remake" the judiciary; a task which almost requires judges whose experience is outside litigation. Litigation is not life and judges with experience in other areas of endeavor may make for a less academic and more grounded judiciary than is made by stocking judgeships whose life and work experience is solely litigation.

Mind you, I'm not sure I 100% agree with installing judges from outside the legal system, as that argument smacks of the "wise Latina woman" argument made by and for Sotomayor. But an argument can be made that judges whose life and work experience is solely within the trial system have a built-in bias and getting an occasional judge from outside that closed loop could be help de-ossify the judiciary.

We have far too many judges today basing decisions on politics. It's why attorneys go judge shopping when filing motions, to find a sympathetic judge who will decide on politics not merit. Witness the Trump travel ban, the lawsuits against which were filled with judges known to have left-wing political sympathies. So political were the lower courts' injunctions that the Supreme Court voted near-unanimously to lift the injunctions - twice.

The Trump gang knew perfectly well how unqualified he was and did not care, because all they care about is his politics. ~ Gail at December 16, 2017 9:33 AM

And you think they're unique in that?

And yet I'm sure there are areas in which someone could drop a question or two on you that you would struggle to answer, areas of the law which have not been in your regular routine since law school; areas they might consider basic knowledge. ~ Conan 12/16 11:26a

Of course there's a vast difference between flubbing a question or two from random areas of the law, and bricking the answer to each and every question asked in your job interview. No one is asserting those questions were trifles about trivia.

The Trump gang knew perfectly well how unqualified he was and did not care, because all they care about is his politics. ~ Gail at December 16, 2017 9:33 AM

And you think they're unique in that? ~ Conan 12/16 11:26a

Why does that matter? Ever? Do you have principles and standards or not? Is this nominee competent or not?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE6Ia6OSEPA

Skip to 1:32 if you wish.

No one is asserting those questions were trifles about trivia. ~ gcmortal at December 16, 2017 1:27 PM

They were specific questions about litigation practices and procedures, one area of the law. It is possible for a competent lawyer to practice law for years and not engage in litigation, as Peterson did.

My argument was not to assert that Peterson should be confirmed as a federal judge, but that his misses on litigation-specific questions hardly make him a "moron."

Kennedy's asking the questions he asked of the nominee were in accord with his later justification to Fox News that a federal court judge should be experienced in litigation lest he be eaten alive by the predatory lawyers in that particular practice. Not everyone will agree with him, but the current consensus seems to agree with him.

Why does that matter? Ever? Do you have principles and standards or not? Is this nominee competent or not? ~ gcmortal at December 16, 2017 1:27 PM

Of course you have standards. No one is asserting that you shouldn't. But to argue that one president's appointments are political without acknowledging that most presidential appointments are political is to cast stones from a glass castle.

Gail's argument is that too many of Trump's downstream appointments to the judiciary are incompetent; that Trump's entire administration doesn't care about competence, only politics, in judicial appointments. Certainly, Peterson's performance in this video did not bolster a counter-argument. But to say the entire administration cares not one whit about competence is an assertion of opinion, an opinion fortified by a strong bias against Trump admitted to in an earlier thread. You can see where someone might doubt her objectivity in this assertion.

There is no non-partisan agency that rates and reviews nominees for judicial appointments. The ABA used to rate judicial nominees for Republican and Democratic presidents, but the organization has become highly politicized in recent decades, to the point that Republican presidents generally distrust and disregard ABA reviews of their judicial nominees (I provided a link to a Forbes article making that point in an earlier post).

Peterson was a respected DC attorney, graduating the University of Virginia Law School where he served on the Law Review, working for one of the largest law firms in Washington, serving as in-house counsel for committees in both the House and Senate, approved unanimously by the Senate for a seat on the Federal Election Commission, and generally acknowledged as "smart" and "honest." Not exactly the resume of someone considered incompetent and appointed for political considerations alone.

Much of this reminds me of what 'draining the swamp' means. To a Democrat it means firing any entrenched person on the right or with sympathy to the right, to a Republican it means getting rid of entrenched people from the left or those who sympathize, but to many others it is get rid of those whose entire career was working in DC.
Some of Trumps message is aimed at those others, trying people who are differently qualified. A non-politician for President a non- teacher/union to head Dept of education, a Dr to head housing and urban planning, and now non litigation lawyers to be judges. A different perspective, different skills to change it to a different system. You may see it as unqualified, and they may be, but it may be that the skills that are believed to qualify someone is the problem and need to be tested.
It is this different perspective that I feel is part of this. So who is qualified to write a new 'common sense' gun law: a lawyer who has never seen a gun outside of a movie, an activist/lobyist, an avid hunter, or someone in the military. Conventional DC wisdom says only the first 2 are qualified, and the other two are completely unqualified. But many outside DC say the opposite.

Conan Says:

"Gail's argument is that too many of Trump's downstream appointments to the judiciary are incompetent; that Trump's entire administration doesn't care about competence, only politics, in judicial appointments. Certainly, Peterson's performance in this video did not bolster a counter-argument. But to say the entire administration cares not one whit about competence is an assertion of opinion, an opinion fortified by a strong bias against Trump admitted to in an earlier thread. You can see where someone might doubt her objectivity in this assertion."

I think that there is ample evidence to support Gail's argument without doubting her objectivity.

I cannot speak to the overall qualifications of Trumps judicial nominations.

I can however speak to the qualifications of Trumps nominations to areas that typically require scientific expertise.

Scott Pruit is now the head of the EPA and has no scientific background at all.

Rick Perry is now the head of the DOE... a department of government that has traditionally been headed by physicists, chemical engineers, etc... Rick on the other hand has a background in animal science. This seems like a rather curious choice if it isn't motivated purely by politics.

I think it is entirely reasonable to assert that Trump seems to care far more for entrenching figures politically aligned with him than he cares for appointments to have the requisite background qualifications to competently perform the job.

Artie, Gail's argument was about "downstream appointments to the judiciary," not government appointments in general.

And she's admitted in previous threads that Trump drives her nuts. As a New Yorker, she formed an opinion of him long before he got into politics, and it was decidedly not a favorable one.

No issues there. Gail is a smart woman and has a lot to contribute to this forum, more so than many. But one can wonder about her objectivity regarding Trump, just as Crid casts aspersions on Snoopy's obvious fan boy worship of Trump.

Scott Pruit is now the head of the EPA and has no scientific background at all. [...] Rick Perry is now the head of the DOE... a department of government that has traditionally been headed by physicists, chemical engineers, etc. ~ Artemis at December 20, 2017 2:43 AM

Those agencies have never had much, if any, regard for the economic implications of imposing regulations. Trump has stated that his intent is to shake up Washington, to put more people in charge who consider the economic implications of regulations and government restrictions. Putting Pruitt in charge of the EPA fits with that objective, as does putting Perry at DOE.

In addition, putting scientists in charge of administering technical agencies does not always make something work effectively. Administrative ability and technical expertise do not always go hand-in-hand. The skill sets are distinct and different. It's rare to find both skill sets in one person without distinct training in both (e.g., Lee Iacocca at Chrysler).

Witness the EPA dumping millions of gallons of mine waste into the Animas River Basin. No one was ever fired or disciplined for that disaster.

Obama's head of the EPA at the time of the Gold King mine disaster was Gina McCarthy. She has a bachelor's degree in Social Anthropology and a Master's in Environmental Health Engineering and Planning and Policy (I don't know if that's an actual STEM degree or just a public admin. degree in a lab coat). Her entire work experience was with state and federal regulatory agencies, so she had no experience in dealing with the economic implications of regulatory policy.

Nor is she accustomed to standards of accountability that one finds in private industry; hence the almost-immediate ducking behind sovereign immunity by the EPA in the wake of the Gold King mine spill and the alarming lack of any disciplinary action taken.

Regarding Perry at DOE, one consideration is also what you think the DOE's mandate is. Is it finding sources of "clean" energy, as the Obama administration seemed to feel, or is it making sure the country has ready access to usable energy, whatever the source, without handcuffing the search for reliable energy sources to "renewable" and "sustainable" mandates?

To that end, do you declare your intention to destroy the coal industry, as the Obama and putative Clinton administrations did, or do you seek to maintain a coal industry as a reliable source of energy for the country?

Not to pick on him, but Obama's DOE invested heavily in solar (Solyndra) and wind energy companies, companies that later failed not only to provide a return on the investment, but to stay in business. Obama considered it important for the government to encourage, and even fund, alternative energy research to the point that repeated failed investments of taxpayer money were of little concern to him.

Whatever your mandate for the role of government, that more than politics, will shape who you put in charge of the regulatory arms of the government. It has always been thus.

Coney Says:

"Artie, Gail's argument was about "downstream appointments to the judiciary," not government appointments in general."

Great... then why did you expand her contention here:

"But to say the entire administration cares not one whit about competence is an assertion of opinion, an opinion..."

Your criticism didn't remain limited to the judiciary alone. It expanded to the entire administration and it's care for competence in general.

That was the point I was addressing.

"And she's admitted in previous threads that Trump drives her nuts. As a New Yorker, she formed an opinion of him long before he got into politics, and it was decidedly not a favorable one."

So what?

You have admitted in pervious threads along with many other frequent posters on this board to not like the Clintons.

Should this discredit any opinion you might have on them in the future, or should I measure your future opinions based solely upon their merits?

Whether or not Gail likes Trump has no baring upon the facts of whether he is putting forth qualified candidates for the judiciary or not.

These two items are separate.

If you are going to insist that they are not separate should I expect you and others to stop criticizing those you have previously admitted to not liking?

It is an unusual standard, but I would like to see consistency here.

Great... then why did you expand her contention here: ~ Artemis at December 22, 2017 7:53 AM

Because of this:

"The Trump gang knew perfectly well how unqualified he was and did not care, because all they care about is his politics."

[emphasis mine]

"They" and "gang" seem to indict the entire administration.

You have admitted in pervious [sic] threads along with many other frequent posters on this board to not like the Clintons. [...] Should this discredit any opinion you might have on them in the future, or should I measure your future opinions based solely upon their merits? ~ Artemis at December 22, 2017 7:53 AM

Not discredit. But one might question my objectivity, although I've taken great pains to be as objectively fair to the Clintons as possible. They just keep moving the goal posts.

Besides, I don't dislike the Clintons, I don't trust them. That distrust is based on an objective view of their record and actions over the past several decades.

I don't know how old you are, but I was approaching thirty when the Bill Clinton presidency began - and I watched Bill parse the meaning of "is" while his wife called anyone who accused him of wrongdoing a slut, bimbo, or right-wing conspirator.

I argued then, as I do now, that allowing the Paula Jones lawsuit to go forward, long after the expiration of the statute of limitations, was wrong; that Judge Royce Lambert was, to be generous, mistaken to do so. I also questioned, then as now, the expansion of Walsh's investigation into Clinton's sexual harassment of staff members, an expansion reviewed and approved by Mrs. Clinton's hand-picked Attorney General, Janet Reno.

Then, Bill turned out be guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, lost his New York and Arkansas law licenses, and was barred from arguing before the Supreme Court forever. Conspiracy eh?

Hillary's e-mail and server scandal alone is reason enough not to trust her. Add in Bill's high-paid speeches to foreign entities while Hillary was Sec-State and a charity that seems, at least on the surface, little more than a front for a Clinton slush fund and tax write-off and you've got a strong, non-partisan reason to question their honesty.

And you'll notice that I never used the as-yet-unsubstantiated "she's a violent drunk" or "sleeps 18 hours a day" arguments, as some on this forum have.

So, go ahead and question my objectivity on the Clintons. I'll come out of any analysis as reasonably objective.

Gail has, in an earlier thread, admitted a deep and visceral dislike of Trump, "...as a New Yorker, I've seen more than enough of Trump and then some. My loathing and distrust of him as a human being goes well beyond politics...." You can see where one might question her objectivity regarding anything Trump.

Whether or not Gail likes Trump has no baring [sic] upon the facts of whether he is putting forth qualified candidates for the judiciary or not. ~ Artemis at December 22, 2017 7:53 AM

Not entirely. As I pointed out earlier, there is no bipartisan agency reviewing appointments. So, "qualified" is a subjective description; "moron" certainly is.

And, as I also pointed out earlier, until his gaffe, Peterson was a respected Washington, DC attorney who had held high positions in government and private practice. He was even unanimously approved by the Senate for a position on the FEC, which he later chaired for six years. He did not have a resume that by default indicated he was unqualified. His resume alone would have led many to label him as "qualified." And did.

Questioning a nominee is meant to weed out those not ready for the position to which they've been nominated. Which, in this case, it did. Peterson's failure to pass the initial questioning was probably as much a surprise to his supporters as it was a delight to his detractors, and to Trump's detractors.

Gail's admitted loathing of Trump probably contributed to her not seeing Peterson objectively, labeling Peterson "unqualified" and a "moron." As did Amy's.

His resume did not say "unqualified to be a judge." It did say "inexperienced in litigation" and set him up for additional questioning in that area, questioning which was immediately initiated by Senator Kennedy (in a "gotcha" ambush style) and which Peterson failed.

And, as I said, I'm not anti-Gail. I find her to be reasonably objective in most things and smart. I generally enjoy reading her posts and even learn a thing or two from them. She adds some intellectual heft and good arguments to the forum and I hope she sticks around.

Wordy, I know, but you do seem to bring that out in me, Artie.

Conan Says:

"Because of this:

"The Trump gang knew perfectly well how unqualified he was and did not care, because all they care about is his politics."

[emphasis mine]

"They" and "gang" seem to indict the entire administration."

Now you are flip flopping.

First you objected to me talking about the Trump administration in general because according to you Gail was only discussing the judicial appointments.

Now when I pointed out that you expanded her claim you defend that expansion by asserting that she was indicting the entire administration.

You cannot have it both ways.

Please pick a lane.

"Not discredit. But one might question my objectivity, although I've taken great pains to be as objectively fair to the Clintons as possible. They just keep moving the goal posts.

Besides, I don't dislike the Clintons, I don't trust them. That distrust is based on an objective view of their record and actions over the past several decades."

You are bending over backwards to create a distinction that is illusory.

Gail would similarly contend that she is applying objective criteria to her criticism of Trump based upon her distrust of him based upon her observations of his behavior over the past several decades.

You contend the reason she has issues with him are due to being from New York... that would indicated that her issues are ALSO based upon observations of behavior over the years.

There is no difference as far as I can tell between your criticisms of the Clintons and her criticisms of Trump.

Yet you contend your criticisms are "objective" and hers are not.

That is just your subjective opinion, it isn't based on fact.

This is an example of how one converts subjectivity into objectivity.

Your own objectivity here is entirely subjective.

Conan Says:

"Gail has, in an earlier thread, admitted a deep and visceral dislike of Trump, "...as a New Yorker, I've seen more than enough of Trump and then some. My loathing and distrust of him as a human being goes well beyond politics...." You can see where one might question her objectivity regarding anything Trump."

By the way, this quote sounds exactly like you with regard to the Clintons.

She claims to have a long history of observation of his behavior.

She claims to distrust him.

This whole add on of "loathing" and "beyond politics" doesn't have to add anything to the party here if you were to take a moment and ask Gail what she means.

The fact that Trump is on tape contending that he sexually assaults women whenever he feels like it could cause a reasonable and objective woman to "loath" him beyond mere "politics".

That wouldn't make her any less objective.

Just because someone has feelings about another person "beyond politics" doesn't instantly make it "personal".

She might loath him for business reasons, or legal reasons, or a variety of other reasons that aren't "personal" and hence compromise her integrity.

Where does Gail contend her views on Trump are personal in nature?... like he called her a name while passing in the street or something?

You are actively looking for an excuse to ignore Gail's position here and I don't believe you are justified to do so.

"As I pointed out earlier, there is no bipartisan agency reviewing appointments. So, "qualified" is a subjective description; "moron" certainly is."

If words like qualified are to have any meaning at all it needs to mean that a person can answer basic questions associated with the position they are applying for.

If words like moron are to have any meaning at all it needs to mean that someone shows up for a congressional hearing as ill-prepared to answer questions as Matthew Petersen did. That doesn't have to mean that he is a moron in general... but showing up as he did was the behavior of a moron.

Call that subjective if you like... but words need to have meanings and if these words do not apply in this instance then they do not apply anywhere.

Artie, you are remaking points I've already made and trying to use them to argue with me.

Yes, as I stated before, showing up without having boned up on litigation rules was dumb, one could call it moronic even. But, it's possible that, on opening day of the nomination hearings, Peterson was not expecting to be hit with litigation-specific questions and so did not bone up beforehand. It's also possible that, as a practicing and well-connected attorney in Washington for years before his nomination, he thought he was prepared. Or that he thought the nomination hearings were a formality. I don't know why he came to the hearings unprepared. And you don't either.

Meanwhile, Peterson's resume (as viewed prior to the hearings) did not say "unqualified." It did say "inexperienced in litigation." That inexperience is what Senator Kennedy used to grill him on the first day and force his withdrawal.

Gail's comment was not that Peterson was a moron for showing up unprepared, but that he was an unqualified moron from the beginning and that he was appointed solely because of his politics and had no qualifications whatsoever to be nominated. I took exception with that, and only that.

Peterson failed to satisfactorily answer questions "on how many depositions he had worked on, how many jury trials he had tried, and the last time he had read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." In other words, litigation-specific topics.

Even Senator Kennedy, Peterson's tormentor, admitted that he's "whip-smart."

I did not "ignore Gail's position," I questioned it. Big difference. I respect Gail's intelligence and opinion much more than I respect yours. Yet, I've spent more time arguing with you about her position than I have engaging with her.

As for objectivity, I have never expressed a "loathing" for the Clintons (as politicians or human beings), nor any sort of direct hatred or feeling of animosity toward them. I have expressed a distrust of them and their motives, and explained it using specific behavior of theirs.

And don't lecture me on subjectivity and objectivity. You are not the voice of reason on this forum. Most of the time, your comments are those of a sheltered academic (or, if Crid is right, mental patient), nitpicking minutiae and missing the forest for the trees.

Bye Felic..., er, Artie.