(02-20-2020 11:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 10:32 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 10:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 10:19 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 09:47 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  A vote for Trump is simply a vote of confidence in the incredible economy we have going right now. All personal feelings aside.

What it's actually a vote for is the full and complete activist right wing takeover of the judiciary for the next 30 years. It's the one thing that will give me pause about my refusal to vote for any Dem other than Bernie. It won't stop me from doing it, but yeah McConnell is gonna ram thru countless more under the age of 40 unqualified federalist society members who could serve the rest of my life. Now I hope President Bernie appoints nothing but DSA members under the age of 30.

And I'm fine with Federalist Society members (I am one, for the record) under 40 (I'm not one of those, for the record). And I am not aware of any reason why Federalist Society membership makes one less qualified.

That doesn't, but judges who have literally never even tried a single case are not qualified to be lifetime appointments.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/us/br...enate.html

"The lawyer, Brett Talley, is the fourth judicial nominee under President Trump to receive a “not qualified” rating from the bar association and the second to receive the rating unanimously. Since 1989, the association has unanimously rated only two other judicial nominees as not qualified."

I know next it's gonna be MUH NY TIMES and the ABA is a left wing rag.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...confirmed/

So yes I hope when Bernie wins he appoints 30 year old DSA members since being actually qualified now doesn't matter.

The ABA has become left wing nonsense. And everybody has to start somewhere. Its not like he is appointing non-lawyers to judges positions (but some non-lawyers have been on the Supreme Court). https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2...0120110216
"...But decades later, President George W. Bush was less thankful, declining to give the ABA committee an early peek at the names of potential nominees. The conservative Federalist Society had criticized the ABA for its low rankings of favored and well-known Reagan appointees, and the ABA’s special access was revoked. The committee continued to conduct its ratings after the nominations were announced and before the Senate held confirmation hearings.

“More often than not, the ABA does a fine job in evaluating judicial nominees,” Bush-era Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in an interview after the VanDyke episode. “However, because the ABA is an organization that takes a public position on many issues, it appears at times that those policy positions are reflected in bias against certain nominees who may have a public record of holding a contrary position...."

"...The ABA committee’s Oct. 29 letter to the committee also described him as “arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice,” based on the views of 60 lawyers and others interviewed by the committee, which is tasked with evaluating federal judicial nominees. The committee deemed VanDyke to be “not qualified,” as have eight other nominees of President Donald Trump...."
Article mentions, but doesn't spell it out. The person who lead this ABA evaluation was a political opponent of VanDyke in Montana.

Like the media, the ABA can't be trusted anymore to be the least bit objective.

LOL at everyone has to start somewhere. Yeah sure everyone has to start their law career somewhere, why not with a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary. Really the perfect place for on the job training.

At least just be intellectually honest and say "elections have consequences deal with it." It's why I fully advocate Bernie to nominate 30 year old DSA members. In light of the Supreme Court saying political gerrymandering is a completely non justiciable issue it's time to make California and New York districts look like complete nonsense.