Biden nominees

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been several unqualified nominees from this administration.

But, this one takes the cake. And, to think - he has been a judge for 4 years and cannot answer this basic question?

It obviously a trick question designed to make a nominee look bad.

His qualifications are he’s a Black man who can summon the patience to put up with a presumably racist white man asking him trick questions.

Never change, DCUM. Never change.
DP

[Anonymous]

Is answering pop quiz legal questions part of a judge’s job? It’s been a while, but I don’t recall this type of thing being at all relevant. Most motions are decided on the papers with lots of time to research and read cases. And the beauty of being a federal judge is that you can always defer a decision and order briefing. The guy should have known what Brady was, but I don’t see how this makes him unqualified. The people saying otherwise seem to not know how federal courts work.

[Anonymous]

Crappy appointees too, look at the dude who steals luggage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is answering pop quiz legal questions part of a judge’s job? It’s been a while, but I don’t recall this type of thing being at all relevant. Most motions are decided on the papers with lots of time to research and read cases. And the beauty of being a federal judge is that you can always defer a decision and order briefing. The guy should have known what Brady was, but I don’t see how this makes him unqualified. The people saying otherwise seem to not know how federal courts work.

Even I knew the answer to that question. And, I am not a lawyer. It was not a trick question.

[Anonymous]

How is that a trick question??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ACB couldn’t name the 5 rights protected by 1A (then again, religion is the only one she cares about). I asked my middle school kid at dinner that night and he nailed it.

Now that’s embarrassing.

You should be embarrassed for obfuscation. She forgot one.

“When asked by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) to name the five freedoms, Barrett was able to name freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly, before looking puzzled and saying, “What else am I missing?”
Sasse then told Barrett she had forgotten “redress or protest.”

—Forbes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Crappy appointees too, look at the dude who steals luggage

Trump appointed Sam Brinton. And it’s “they”, not “a dude”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is that a trick question??

It’s a trick question because literally no one would know the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is that a trick question??

It’s a trick question because literally no one would know the answer.

But a lot of people of this thread, including non lawyers, are telling you they know the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is that a trick question??

It’s a trick question because literally no one would know the answer.

But a lot of people of this thread, including non lawyers, are telling you they know the answer.

They did not. They are lying. No one just “knows” that answer without looking it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is that a trick question??

It’s a trick question because literally no one would know the answer.

But a lot of people of this thread, including non lawyers, are telling you they know the answer.

They did not. They are lying. No one just “knows” that answer without looking it up.

Doesn't sound like you have bothered to look it up. If you had, you would know that every judge should know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been several unqualified nominees from this administration.

But, this one takes the cake. And, to think - he has been a judge for 4 years and cannot answer this basic question?

It obviously a trick question designed to make a nominee look bad.

His qualifications are he’s a Black man who can summon the patience to put up with a presumably racist white man asking him trick questions.

Sarcasm???

Only on DCUM would a question regarding "Brady" be considered a trick question to a judge who can't answer it.
Hell, I have no law training and even I could answer that question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is that a trick question??

It’s a trick question because literally no one would know the answer.

But a lot of people of this thread, including non lawyers, are telling you they know the answer.

They did not. They are lying. No one just “knows” that answer without looking it up.

Know the answer to the Brady question? Are you kidding? This is basic legal knowledge. And, not exclusive to people with law degrees.
But, let's pretend for a minute that everyone here is lying. That in no way excuses a JUDGE - yes, a JUDGE to be ignorant of the Brady Rule.
This guy thought it had something to do with gun control. What an idiot.

This is 1st year law school stuff. And, this is absolutely something a judge should be well versed on. The fact that he had no clue what a Brady violation is disqualifies him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is that a trick question??

The Brady Rule and the Brady Bill are very different things. It wasn’t immediately clear to me which one he was asking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is that a trick question??

It’s a trick question because literally no one would know the answer.

But a lot of people of this thread, including non lawyers, are telling you they know the answer.

I’m a lawyer who knows the answers. Both of them. So, I would also ask for clarification about whether he was talking about a motion under the Brady Bill (which is a 2A issue) or concerning the Brady case. The ignorant people are the ones who don’t consider that h there is also a 2A Brady Bill (named after the Agent shot protecting Reagan).