SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
FEC commissioner Matthew Spencer Petersen was unable to define basic legal terms and procedures and admitted he had never tried a civil or criminal case, in his confirmation hearing for a U.S. District Court appointment. (Photo: @TheAlt_Media/Twitter)
'Hoo-Boy': Trump's Judicial Nominee Shows No Knowledge of Basic Legal Terms in Hearing
Trump's latest judicial pick further demonstrates the administration's focus on quantity—and cronyism—over the quality of nominees
Dec 15, 2017
The testimony of one of President Donald Trump's latest judicial nominees went viral Thursday after the potential future U.S. District Court judge was shown to have no knowledge of basic legal terms and little experience in law.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) asked Federal Election Commissioner Matthew Spencer Petersen if he had ever tried a criminal or civil case or a case in a state or federal court, finally questioning whether he had even taken a deposition without supervision from a more senior attorney--the answers to all of which were "no."
Petersen also appeared to be unfamiliar with legal rules dictating court procedures and several examples of legal terminology.
Watch:
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) posted about Petersen's testimony on Twitter, expressing shock at his flimsy qualifications for an appointment as a federal judge.
\u201cMUST WATCH: Republican @SenJohnKennedy asks one of @realDonaldTrump\u2019s US District Judge nominees basic questions of law & he can\u2019t answer a single one. Hoo-boy.\u201d— Sheldon Whitehouse (@Sheldon Whitehouse) 1513302283
But Petersen is only the latest of Trump's judicial nominees to draw attention for their lack of eligibility. Earlier this week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) urged the Trump administration to withdraw its nominations of Brett Talley and Jeff Mateer, nominated to district courts in Alabama and Texas, respectively.
Talley has been found to have limited legal experience and failed to disclose that he is married to a White House Counsel lawyer, creating a serious conflict of interest should he be nominated, while Mateer has expressed homophobic and transphobic views and has supported LGBTQ "conversion therapy."
As Axios reported, Trump has set a record for the most circuit court judges confirmed in his first year in office, with 12 confirmations--but on social media, critics suggested the president is placing quantity--and cronyism--over quality in his nominating process. Petersen served on the FEC alongside White House Counsel Don McGahn, who now oversees the president's judicial nominations.
\u201cSerious damage to the integrity of the judicial system. We may not always like the personal politics of a nominee but mostly accept it as long as nominees are highly qualified lawyers. Confirmations should be put on hold until Trump demonstrates concern for quality not cronyism. https://t.co/1v0Tw8J6SW\u201d— Joyce Alene (@Joyce Alene) 1513349126
\u201cThe context here is that White House Counsel Don McGahn, who oversees Trump's judicial nominees, was an FEC commissioner serving alongside this guy. https://t.co/G3TTMq2Qv8\u201d— Andrew Prokop (@Andrew Prokop) 1513311822
\u201cThe sickening slide of the GOP under Trump appears finally to have hit bottom, as Republicans begin to push back against his extremist, unqualified judicial nominees. https://t.co/gS50p9uO7I\u201d— Sheldon Whitehouse (@Sheldon Whitehouse) 1513199881
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The testimony of one of President Donald Trump's latest judicial nominees went viral Thursday after the potential future U.S. District Court judge was shown to have no knowledge of basic legal terms and little experience in law.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) asked Federal Election Commissioner Matthew Spencer Petersen if he had ever tried a criminal or civil case or a case in a state or federal court, finally questioning whether he had even taken a deposition without supervision from a more senior attorney--the answers to all of which were "no."
Petersen also appeared to be unfamiliar with legal rules dictating court procedures and several examples of legal terminology.
Watch:
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) posted about Petersen's testimony on Twitter, expressing shock at his flimsy qualifications for an appointment as a federal judge.
\u201cMUST WATCH: Republican @SenJohnKennedy asks one of @realDonaldTrump\u2019s US District Judge nominees basic questions of law & he can\u2019t answer a single one. Hoo-boy.\u201d— Sheldon Whitehouse (@Sheldon Whitehouse) 1513302283
But Petersen is only the latest of Trump's judicial nominees to draw attention for their lack of eligibility. Earlier this week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) urged the Trump administration to withdraw its nominations of Brett Talley and Jeff Mateer, nominated to district courts in Alabama and Texas, respectively.
Talley has been found to have limited legal experience and failed to disclose that he is married to a White House Counsel lawyer, creating a serious conflict of interest should he be nominated, while Mateer has expressed homophobic and transphobic views and has supported LGBTQ "conversion therapy."
As Axios reported, Trump has set a record for the most circuit court judges confirmed in his first year in office, with 12 confirmations--but on social media, critics suggested the president is placing quantity--and cronyism--over quality in his nominating process. Petersen served on the FEC alongside White House Counsel Don McGahn, who now oversees the president's judicial nominations.
\u201cSerious damage to the integrity of the judicial system. We may not always like the personal politics of a nominee but mostly accept it as long as nominees are highly qualified lawyers. Confirmations should be put on hold until Trump demonstrates concern for quality not cronyism. https://t.co/1v0Tw8J6SW\u201d— Joyce Alene (@Joyce Alene) 1513349126
\u201cThe context here is that White House Counsel Don McGahn, who oversees Trump's judicial nominees, was an FEC commissioner serving alongside this guy. https://t.co/G3TTMq2Qv8\u201d— Andrew Prokop (@Andrew Prokop) 1513311822
\u201cThe sickening slide of the GOP under Trump appears finally to have hit bottom, as Republicans begin to push back against his extremist, unqualified judicial nominees. https://t.co/gS50p9uO7I\u201d— Sheldon Whitehouse (@Sheldon Whitehouse) 1513199881
The testimony of one of President Donald Trump's latest judicial nominees went viral Thursday after the potential future U.S. District Court judge was shown to have no knowledge of basic legal terms and little experience in law.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) asked Federal Election Commissioner Matthew Spencer Petersen if he had ever tried a criminal or civil case or a case in a state or federal court, finally questioning whether he had even taken a deposition without supervision from a more senior attorney--the answers to all of which were "no."
Petersen also appeared to be unfamiliar with legal rules dictating court procedures and several examples of legal terminology.
Watch:
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) posted about Petersen's testimony on Twitter, expressing shock at his flimsy qualifications for an appointment as a federal judge.
\u201cMUST WATCH: Republican @SenJohnKennedy asks one of @realDonaldTrump\u2019s US District Judge nominees basic questions of law & he can\u2019t answer a single one. Hoo-boy.\u201d— Sheldon Whitehouse (@Sheldon Whitehouse) 1513302283
But Petersen is only the latest of Trump's judicial nominees to draw attention for their lack of eligibility. Earlier this week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) urged the Trump administration to withdraw its nominations of Brett Talley and Jeff Mateer, nominated to district courts in Alabama and Texas, respectively.
Talley has been found to have limited legal experience and failed to disclose that he is married to a White House Counsel lawyer, creating a serious conflict of interest should he be nominated, while Mateer has expressed homophobic and transphobic views and has supported LGBTQ "conversion therapy."
As Axios reported, Trump has set a record for the most circuit court judges confirmed in his first year in office, with 12 confirmations--but on social media, critics suggested the president is placing quantity--and cronyism--over quality in his nominating process. Petersen served on the FEC alongside White House Counsel Don McGahn, who now oversees the president's judicial nominations.
\u201cSerious damage to the integrity of the judicial system. We may not always like the personal politics of a nominee but mostly accept it as long as nominees are highly qualified lawyers. Confirmations should be put on hold until Trump demonstrates concern for quality not cronyism. https://t.co/1v0Tw8J6SW\u201d— Joyce Alene (@Joyce Alene) 1513349126
\u201cThe context here is that White House Counsel Don McGahn, who oversees Trump's judicial nominees, was an FEC commissioner serving alongside this guy. https://t.co/G3TTMq2Qv8\u201d— Andrew Prokop (@Andrew Prokop) 1513311822
\u201cThe sickening slide of the GOP under Trump appears finally to have hit bottom, as Republicans begin to push back against his extremist, unqualified judicial nominees. https://t.co/gS50p9uO7I\u201d— Sheldon Whitehouse (@Sheldon Whitehouse) 1513199881
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.