Watch: Trump judicial nominee can't answer a single question properly at hearing


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2017/12/15/watch-trump-judicial-nominee.html


#2


#3

Kennedy: “Do you know what the little wooden hammer on a judge’s desk-thingy is called?”
Petersen: “Well as an associate that was not my main area of expertise so I don’t have a comprehensive answer for you on that topic at this time, but if confirmed I will endeavor to do my best to…”


Believe it or not Petersen wasn’t even the worst nominee of the bunch:


#4

Sooo…I am more qualified for this position than this guy. I never attended law school, but I can recognize when I am out of my element, and would politely decline the appointment due to complete lack of experience. That itself shows a level of wisdom.

But, then again, by that logic, I am also more qualified to be the current president…


#5


#6


#7


#8

Indeed, the lack of experience is not quite so chilling as their willingness to accept these positions despite the consequences of setting bad legal precedents. Is it just a matter of the salary and benefits being really good?

It will be a vital task for future administrations to find some means of cleaning house. Some kind of regular multiple-choice exam that any first-year law student could pass with 60%, perhaps.


#9

https://youtu.be/0aiCbbYU9_s


#10

One key reason these guys are so inexperienced is that when you are talking about a lifetime appointment, the incentive for the administration is to find the youngest possible appointee so they can remain in the position for decades to come. So it makes tactical sense to appoint a bunch of 30something ideologues because they could plausibly be pushing conservative policy for half a century or more.

We could fix this problem by changing the rules so that Federal judges were appointed for, say, a one-time fixed term of 20 years. But good luck making that happen.


#11

He did pass the bar, right? Because I hear the bar exam has an important law section.


#12

Senator - unlike other so-called judges - I bring a completely unbiased, open mind to these issues.


#13

You’ve got my vote. Any chance your running mate is a cat with heterochromia? That would put you over the top at this point.


#14

Those were all “got’cha questions”…


#15

Even 20 years is excessive. maybe 10? I get that government is supposed to move a bit slowly in order to limit the whims of the mob mentality of any given moment but the people in power are determined to stay there regardless of the fact that 90+ percent of the citizens are being screwed.


#16

This is totally insane. Not just his lack of experience, but his lack of knowledge. Apparently these subjects of which he’s unaware are the most basic elements of day-to-day work in the federal court. He’s like a would-be cardiac surgeon who doesn’t know what a heart is… he can’t do the job, but he’ll do a lot of damage pretending to.


#17

Wow! That nominee looked soooooo uncomfortable under the relentless badgering by the committee. I enjoyed it immensely. 10 rotten tomatoes from me!


#18

The way 45 keeps getting sued maybe their main qualification is not to ever show up for work.


#19

I know this one! It’s the big blood bag in the middle of the, um… chestal area.

Do I get the job?


#20

Well the ostensible idea behind the lifetime appointment is to insulate you from politics so that you can be impartial in that sense. Being against the issue of the day won’t cost you your seat in 4 years. The problem is that appointing judges is inherently political.