Good. Totally unqualified.

Because.......

Adeel Mangi has failed to disclose to the Senate Judiciary Committee the key role he played at a 2022 National Association of Muslim Lawyers conference that was sponsored by Hamas allies.

This comes after Mangi was exposed for his affiliations with extremist groups with antisemitic, terrorist-coddling programming and with anti-police groups that prompted numerous law enforcement organizations to oppose his nomination.

What more does President Biden need to see in order to withdraw Mangi’s nomination, effective immediately?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Amy Comey Barrett is a complete embarrassment as a Justice of the Supreme Court. She's incompetent and unqualified. Listen to her ignorant comments during SCOTUS arguments if you need proof. She has no business being on the SCOTUS.

Aileen Cannon is a complete joke. The 11th Circuit rebuked her and she's been criticized severely for making rookie errors in a previous case. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/aileen-cannon-judge-trump-documents-case-made-multiple-errors-earlier-rcna98207

Dumpus's judicial nominees are far worse than anyone Biden has nominated.

LOL. ACB graduated top of her class at Notre Dame Law School, clerked on the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court, litigated at a well-respected boutique firm, taught at Notre Dame, and served as a federal appellate judge on the 7th Circuit. If you think she is "unqualified," I can't imagine what you think of some diversity hire like Sotomayor.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Amy Comey Barrett is a complete embarrassment as a Justice of the Supreme Court. She's incompetent and unqualified. Listen to her ignorant comments during SCOTUS arguments if you need proof. She has no business being on the SCOTUS.

Aileen Cannon is a complete joke. The 11th Circuit rebuked her and she's been criticized severely for making rookie errors in a previous case. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/aileen-cannon-judge-trump-documents-case-made-multiple-errors-earlier-rcna98207

Dumpus's judicial nominees are far worse than anyone Biden has nominated.

Funny. I think the same of Sotomayer given the comments she has made that are outright false.
She really is an embarrassment.

During oral arguments on the Biden administration's mandate on private businesses for employees to be either vaccinated or frequently tested, Sotomayor drastically overstated the number of young people who have fallen severely ill from coronavirus.

"We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators. We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition, many on ventilators," she said.

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.

Amy Comey Barrett is a complete embarrassment as a Justice of the Supreme Court. She's incompetent and unqualified. Listen to her ignorant comments during SCOTUS arguments if you need proof. She has no business being on the SCOTUS.

Aileen Cannon is a complete joke. The 11th Circuit rebuked her and she's been criticized severely for making rookie errors in a previous case. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/aileen-cannon-judge-trump-documents-case-made-multiple-errors-earlier-rcna98207

Dumpus's judicial nominees are far worse than anyone Biden has nominated.

Anonymous wrote:Biden is not choosing the best.

Meh, he was using MacKinnion as a heuristic to interrogate some of the theories undergirding rape/consent law. Are thought exercises in law review articles shocking now?

Is anyone still shocked by people declaring their pronouns in 2023?

Biden is not choosing the best.

Anonymous wrote:

Knowing that most Americans can’t afford astronomically expensive, new cars, their end goal must be NO CARS for middle class Americans. What’s wrong with these people??

Senate Republicans have once more told Joe Biden to pound sand on one of his judicial nominees and, so far, the White House is going with restraint as its response.

Biden aides are refusing to weigh in on whether Senate Democrats should continue to allow Republicans to use a procedural tool to clog the judicial nomination pipeline after Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) said she would not return the so-called blue slip on district court nominee Scott Colom.

There are currently nearly 40 judicial vacancies that Biden could seek to fill in courts in red states. But the blue slip custom generally dictates that if a home-state senator doesn’t return the blue slip, the majority party halts the nomination.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because answering pop quizzes about the law has almost nothing to do with a judge's actual job or what makes a good judge.

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).

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?

Doubling down on the stupid, huh? Here it is, still in the US Code: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/40901

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).

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?

No it did not. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, which was the part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, are different.