Trump Nominee Can't Answer Basic Law Questions - NOW HAS WITHDRAWN

After Hearing Video goes Viral, Nominee withdraws from consideration.

Nominating wholly unqualified people to the judiciary is a blatant attempt to undermine our legal system and ultimately to degrade the rule of law.


I saw this video. Not only that, he’s got very little actual courtroom experience. He’s done fewer than 5 depositions.


What is Trump thinking?

Who knows? :woman_shrugging:t2: What are Ivanka and Jared for? I’m not sure what experience they bring to the White House.


Whoever suggested Trump put this guy forward really needs to re-examine what they were thinking. Trump may want to change what they are allowed to advise him on

In a way I’m surprised he couldn’t answer those questions, and in a way I’m not.

I’m surprised he didn’t “do his homework” better in order to field those questions. But the questions were “litigator questions”. Lots of highly specialized lawyers don’t know much of anything about litigation procedures. Ask a tax lawyer about taxes, and he’ll tell you more than you really want to know. Ask him about court rules, and he’ll draw a blank. Ask a patent lawyer about patent law and he’ll tell you. Ask him about trial practice, and he can’t. This guy apparently came from the Federal Elections Commission, so it’s not too surprising he didn’t know about such things as “motions in limine”.

Most big law firms nowadays have “specialists” who know about a particular slice of the law very well. But then they have “litigators” who do the actual trial work and are advised about the law by the specialists. The specialists “don’t know where the courthouse is”, themselves.

Obviously, this guy was never a litigator long enough to retain the various aspects of litigation. But it doesn’t mean he is ignorant or inept. He just didn’t do his homework, anticipating “litigator” questions.

1 Like

Which is all true, but raises the question as to his suitability for the nomination. As you say, there is a lot of specialization in the law, but that also means that when you’re looking for judges, while you may want specialists, you probably want someone who also has some wider knowledge, seeing as he isn’t just going to be hearing cases within his area of expertise.


I think lawyers are wary to say something unless they are confident they are correct.

It would seem so. However, I don’t know how many judicial appointees really spent a lot of time in the “litigation trenches”. But no judge is ever gong to only be presented with issues within his area of expertise. Some judge might have spent years as a contract expert, then spent years on the bench, then asked to decide some complex tax question. They have to look up the law, which most good lawyers do all the time, and they have talented clerks who do a lot of that for them.

Still, it’s not an overwhelming performance all in all. But it’s up to the Senate to decide.

A judge needs to know hands-down the things this man was asked, or he/she would not be able to do the job. Having a person like this man on the bench would throw the legal system into chaos.

1 Like

It’s painful to watch! I’m confident many of our politicians are totally unqualified and wouldn’t withstand scrutiny. The lack of preparation here makes me think that this dismal performance was planned. Perhaps this is another decoy for public consumption while other schemes are being employed?

Oh, good grief! Seriously?

Nothing in politics is without deliberate calculations and conspiracy. No coincidence only planning.

1 Like

Are you any relation to Guccifer?

Nah. I just don’t trust anything. It’s a pretty bleak future for our world…

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

I’m not so sure. If, say, a case came to this judge (and others, as would be the case) he would, for example, look up “motion in limine” in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Some of those volumes are annotated with case law, and any Federal Judge would have an annotated set. He could direct his high-octane clerks (and they are high-octane) to get him a brief on the specific “motion in limine” issue. He could direct the litigators to do the same. He could then read the briefs, do some research on his own, and come up with a resolution.

Judges actually do that all the time. A “motion in limine”, I am told, is a motion peculiar to trials. They’re not filed in appeals.

I am also told that federal judges have pretrial conferences fairly quickly after cases are filed, at which the lawyers are required to frame the issues, and given a schedule for filing motions and doing other things. Then again when “discovery” is complete. If one of the litigators is going to file a “motion in limine”, he has to do it by then. The judge has plenty of time to research whatever the issue is.

As I said before, the most brilliant tax or commercial code specialist in the country probably doesn’t know the ins and outs of trial practice, but if he is smart and a worker, he can look up whatever he needs to know.

That’s actually what lawyers do a good part of time, including trial lawyers…look things up. Most of law school is spent learning two things; how to look things up and how to write briefs analyzing them.

The senator who asked him about trial litigation probably knew the man’s background and blew his head off for some other reason. It’s like asking a neurosurgeon in detail how he would repair a medial meniscus. He probably wouldn’t know because he almost certainly would never have done one or spent any time studying the procedure.

As I said before, this candidate’s failure was not in knowing trial practice. It was in not knowing who didn’t want him on the bench and not preparing himself to be blindsided by something outside his own specialty. He should have done that, and is blameworthy only in not seeing it coming and preparing for it.


He was questioned by the very conservative GOP Sen. John Kennedy from Louisiana.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit