Biden nominees

[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.

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).

And if he ever got a Brady motion as a judge, it would come along with a written brief. He'd have law clerks that would then analyze the briefs and write a memo for him. He'd have the chance to read the case law on it. He would not just give a pop fly ruling. Just like it is completely irrelevant that Coney-Barrett couldn't answer a pop fly question about the bill of rights; SCOTUS justices don't actually have to memorize it and spit it out on demand from the bench. This is a stupid controversy.

[Anonymous]

I know what Brady v. Maryland is, and I know what a Brady violation is, but I'm not really sure what a "Brady motion" is, which is what Sen. Kennedy asked about. I googled it, and it seems there are a number of different thoughts. Some people say it is a motion to disclose (although the courts I've worked in have a local rule requiring disclosure), others say it is a motion for additional time to look into disclosed evidence, others say it is a motion for an instruction to the jury, and others say it is a motion for dismissal for failure to disclosure. Seems like a lot of it court and state specific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

And if he ever got a Brady motion as a judge, it would come along with a written brief. He'd have law clerks that would then analyze the briefs and write a memo for him. He'd have the chance to read the case law on it. He would not just give a pop fly ruling. Just like it is completely irrelevant that Coney-Barrett couldn't answer a pop fly question about the bill of rights; SCOTUS justices don't actually have to memorize it and spit it out on demand from the bench. This is a stupid controversy.

Barrett answered the question and clearly had a brief memory lapse and acknowledged it. She rattled off the other ones. This is quite different.

And, if he was confused about the "motion" part, he could have asked for clarification. He clearly did not know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

And if he ever got a Brady motion as a judge, it would come along with a written brief. He'd have law clerks that would then analyze the briefs and write a memo for him. He'd have the chance to read the case law on it. He would not just give a pop fly ruling. Just like it is completely irrelevant that Coney-Barrett couldn't answer a pop fly question about the bill of rights; SCOTUS justices don't actually have to memorize it and spit it out on demand from the bench. This is a stupid controversy.

So, you think it is normal for a sitting judge not to know what a Brady motion is?
Kennedy even asked him if he was familiar with Brady v. Maryland. He said he thought it had to do with the 2nd amendment.
I'm sorry. This is basic stuff. Very basic.
It is one thing for him to never had a Brady motion in his "4 1/2 years as a judge." It is quite another for him not to even know what it is... even when Kennedy cited the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

And if he ever got a Brady motion as a judge, it would come along with a written brief. He'd have law clerks that would then analyze the briefs and write a memo for him. He'd have the chance to read the case law on it. He would not just give a pop fly ruling. Just like it is completely irrelevant that Coney-Barrett couldn't answer a pop fly question about the bill of rights; SCOTUS justices don't actually have to memorize it and spit it out on demand from the bench. This is a stupid controversy.

So, you think it is normal for a sitting judge not to know what a Brady motion is?
Kennedy even asked him if he was familiar with Brady v. Maryland. He said he thought it had to do with the 2nd amendment.
I'm sorry. This is basic stuff. Very basic.
It is one thing for him to never had a Brady motion in his "4 1/2 years as a judge." It is quite another for him not to even know what it is... even when Kennedy cited the case.

So, you think it's normal for a sitting judge to not know the five freedoms in the bill of rights It's basic stuff. Very basic.

[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.

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).

Wait, you think a judge would see a motion based on a law that sunsetted in 2004?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

Wait, you think a judge would see a motion based on a law that sunsetted in 2004?

Brady did not sunset in 2004. Where did you get that idea? Pretty embarrassing mistake from a legal eagle like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

And if he ever got a Brady motion as a judge, it would come along with a written brief. He'd have law clerks that would then analyze the briefs and write a memo for him. He'd have the chance to read the case law on it. He would not just give a pop fly ruling. Just like it is completely irrelevant that Coney-Barrett couldn't answer a pop fly question about the bill of rights; SCOTUS justices don't actually have to memorize it and spit it out on demand from the bench. This is a stupid controversy.

Barrett answered the question and clearly had a brief memory lapse and acknowledged it. She rattled off the other ones. This is quite different.

And, if he was confused about the "motion" part, he could have asked for clarification. He clearly did not know.

Amy is as dumb as a stump; she’s a fascist rubber stamp and a middle finger to feminists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

And if he ever got a Brady motion as a judge, it would come along with a written brief. He'd have law clerks that would then analyze the briefs and write a memo for him. He'd have the chance to read the case law on it. He would not just give a pop fly ruling. Just like it is completely irrelevant that Coney-Barrett couldn't answer a pop fly question about the bill of rights; SCOTUS justices don't actually have to memorize it and spit it out on demand from the bench. This is a stupid controversy.

So, you think it is normal for a sitting judge not to know what a Brady motion is?
Kennedy even asked him if he was familiar with Brady v. Maryland. He said he thought it had to do with the 2nd amendment.
I'm sorry. This is basic stuff. Very basic.
It is one thing for him to never had a Brady motion in his "4 1/2 years as a judge." It is quite another for him not to even know what it is... even when Kennedy cited the case.

So, you think it's normal for a sitting judge to not know the five freedoms in the bill of rights It's basic stuff. Very basic.

Oh, please. She knew them. She asked which one she left off after she rattled off 4.
Thankfully, she had a clue. Unlike this unqualified nominee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

And if he ever got a Brady motion as a judge, it would come along with a written brief. He'd have law clerks that would then analyze the briefs and write a memo for him. He'd have the chance to read the case law on it. He would not just give a pop fly ruling. Just like it is completely irrelevant that Coney-Barrett couldn't answer a pop fly question about the bill of rights; SCOTUS justices don't actually have to memorize it and spit it out on demand from the bench. This is a stupid controversy.

Barrett answered the question and clearly had a brief memory lapse and acknowledged it. She rattled off the other ones. This is quite different.

And, if he was confused about the "motion" part, he could have asked for clarification. He clearly did not know.

Amy is as dumb as a stump; she’s a fascist rubber stamp and a middle finger to feminists.

The whataboutism here is crazy....

Just a reminder:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

And if he ever got a Brady motion as a judge, it would come along with a written brief. He'd have law clerks that would then analyze the briefs and write a memo for him. He'd have the chance to read the case law on it. He would not just give a pop fly ruling. Just like it is completely irrelevant that Coney-Barrett couldn't answer a pop fly question about the bill of rights; SCOTUS justices don't actually have to memorize it and spit it out on demand from the bench. This is a stupid controversy.

So, you think it is normal for a sitting judge not to know what a Brady motion is?
Kennedy even asked him if he was familiar with Brady v. Maryland. He said he thought it had to do with the 2nd amendment.
I'm sorry. This is basic stuff. Very basic.
It is one thing for him to never had a Brady motion in his "4 1/2 years as a judge." It is quite another for him not to even know what it is... even when Kennedy cited the case.

So, you think it's normal for a sitting judge to not know the five freedoms in the bill of rights It's basic stuff. Very basic.

Oh, please. She knew them. She asked which one she left off after she rattled off 4.
Thankfully, she had a clue. Unlike this unqualified nominee.

He told her there were 5. Thankfully she can do kindergarten level math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

And if he ever got a Brady motion as a judge, it would come along with a written brief. He'd have law clerks that would then analyze the briefs and write a memo for him. He'd have the chance to read the case law on it. He would not just give a pop fly ruling. Just like it is completely irrelevant that Coney-Barrett couldn't answer a pop fly question about the bill of rights; SCOTUS justices don't actually have to memorize it and spit it out on demand from the bench. This is a stupid controversy.

So, you think it is normal for a sitting judge not to know what a Brady motion is?
Kennedy even asked him if he was familiar with Brady v. Maryland. He said he thought it had to do with the 2nd amendment.
I'm sorry. This is basic stuff. Very basic.
It is one thing for him to never had a Brady motion in his "4 1/2 years as a judge." It is quite another for him not to even know what it is... even when Kennedy cited the case.

So, you think it's normal for a sitting judge to not know the five freedoms in the bill of rights It's basic stuff. Very basic.

Oh, please. She knew them. She asked which one she left off after she rattled off 4.
Thankfully, she had a clue. Unlike this unqualified nominee.

He told her there were 5. Thankfully she can do kindergarten level math.

I bet if he had asked her what right was violated with an example, she could have told him. Unlike this nominee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

And if he ever got a Brady motion as a judge, it would come along with a written brief. He'd have law clerks that would then analyze the briefs and write a memo for him. He'd have the chance to read the case law on it. He would not just give a pop fly ruling. Just like it is completely irrelevant that Coney-Barrett couldn't answer a pop fly question about the bill of rights; SCOTUS justices don't actually have to memorize it and spit it out on demand from the bench. This is a stupid controversy.

So, you think it is normal for a sitting judge not to know what a Brady motion is?
Kennedy even asked him if he was familiar with Brady v. Maryland. He said he thought it had to do with the 2nd amendment.
I'm sorry. This is basic stuff. Very basic.
It is one thing for him to never had a Brady motion in his "4 1/2 years as a judge." It is quite another for him not to even know what it is... even when Kennedy cited the case.

So, you think it's normal for a sitting judge to not know the five freedoms in the bill of rights It's basic stuff. Very basic.

Oh, please. She knew them. She asked which one she left off after she rattled off 4.
Thankfully, she had a clue. Unlike this unqualified nominee.

He told her there were 5. Thankfully she can do kindergarten level math.

I bet if he had asked her what right was violated with an example, she could have told him. Unlike this nominee.

She probably could have. Who knows. But whether she could or not is not really relevant to the job. Kennedy is a moron for asking these questions.

[Anonymous]

She probably could have. Who knows. But whether she could or not is not really relevant to the job. Kennedy is a moron for asking these questions.

He is asking questions about law. What is moronic about that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

Wait, you think a judge would see a motion based on a law that sunsetted in 2004?

Brady did not sunset in 2004. Where did you get that idea? Pretty embarrassing mistake from a legal eagle like you.

The Brady bill PP was talking about did. Reading comprehension not your strong suit?