Lawyer here. Most first year law students could answer those questions.

you weren't closely paying attention then.

Would it take amending the constitution to remove these idiots from the bench once they've been approved by Congress?

https://smithblawg.blogspot.com/2014...nt-lesson.html

knew I was right

They can be impeached.

I only have room to follow one of the recommended “Who to Follow”. Any suggestions?

Biebs is the clear choice there

His supporters actively favor ignorance, for a variety of reasons. For many of them, failing to possess book-learnin' does not hurt someone in their eyes, it helps. You don't need a law degree to know that men should be men, women should be women, and brown people are dangerous, I'll tell you what.

I had never heard of it either and spelt it correctly when I googled it.

As today's NYT op-ed on judge kosinski notes, there have been fewer federal judges impeached than amendments to the Constitution.

It is absolutely shocking.

As a practicing litigator, with no preparation, my responses would have been:

I have done a trial.

I have taken and defended many dozens of fact and expert depositions on my own (probably more than one hundred).

I review sections of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence regularly on an as needed basis. I rarely, if ever, read the rules cover to cover, but I stay abreast of changes to the rules.

Of course I could explain the Daubert standard.

Of course I could explain what a motion in limine is. I have written many such motions and argued several.

I could explain Younger and Pullman abstention at a high level but could not discuss the significant cases that deal with those doctrines. But again, this is with no preparation. This is an obvious area to brush up on if you have been nominated to be a federal judge.

I expect that most litigators who have been practicing for 10+ years would give similar answers to what I wrote above.

Agree, but that prejudices federal judgeships in favor of experienced litigation attorneys (or state court judges) and not blindly loyal party hacks. I think Chris Christie was a real estate lawyer before he was appointed as a US attorney, and that's when Republicans with "standards" ran the show.

In fact, for appellate judges they want youth and a limited paper trail.

LMAO didn't know what a motion-in-limine is, holy **** that's so bad

This speech is ****ing scary.

you'd be correct if the standard for becoming a federal judge was having a good knowledge of the law and a fair record of practicing it.

Except in this universe it isn't, the only relevant qualification is performing in lockstep with hard line Republican ideals.

All that matters is that when the time comes, we make sure to appoint no one over 40 to the federal court system. Can't let them do this and then turn around and drag our feet and put in some 60 year olds.

on Breitbart in an hour:

'Fine People' - RINO Trump SHOWERS praise on CROOKED MSM!!

You don't have to choose between someone who can answer basic questions about the law and someone who is a party hack. It is trivially easy for either party to find nominees who meet both requirements. That's what is so shocking about this nomination.

Would be shocking in the days when GHWB appointed smart guys who were just greedy warmongers, but the Trumpkin branch of the GOP actively despises knowledge, intelligence and integrity. They think any form of being smart and decent is smug and self-righteous.

When someone is intelligent and the perception is that they are not on your side then that intelligence becomes a threat.

lol @ thinking Dem's will ever learn anything and not get played for chumps if they ever get in control again. They suck at politics. They have sucked at politics for decades. There hasn't been competent political leadership in the Democratic party since LBJ. 50 god damn years of non-stop suckage.

After that long I don't understand how you all can't realize it's intentional.

Bill Clinton was good at politics. He got what he wanted, at least until the Monica Lewinsky scandal derailed his effort to privatize social security.