Judge Matthew Spencer Peterson

[wiffleball 4,642]

Watch this space. Brutal.

[wiffleball 4,642]

Trump tapped Petersen in September to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, one of the most important federal trial courts in the nation. Until now, his nomination has drawn little attention, and Trump’s other nominees to the court in Washington have breezed through the confirmation process with bipartisan support.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/12/15/trump-judicial-nominee-fumbles-basic-questions-about-the-law/?utm_term=.5dc7da3868b2

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

In Wednesday’s hearing, Kennedy started by asking Petersen and the four other nominees who appeared with him: “Have any of you not tried a case to verdict in a courtroom?”

 

Petersen alone raised his hand.

 

Kennedy, a first-term Republican who has challenged some of Trump’s previous judicial nominations, bore down.

Had Petersen ever handled jury trial?

“I have not,” the nominee responded.

 

Civil? No. Criminal? No. Bench trial? No. State or federal court? No.

 

How many depositions had he taken — fewer than five?

“Probably somewhere in that range,” Petersen said.

 

Had he ever argued a motion in state court? Federal court? No on both counts.

 

Kennedy then asked the last time Petersen had read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — the standards that govern civil cases in U.S. District Court, where Petersen is hoping to get a lifetime appointment.

 

“In my current position,” Petersen stuttered, “I obviously don’t need to stay as invested in those on a day-to-day basis, but I do try to keep up to speed.” He added that he oversees a number of attorneys in the FEC’s litigation division and advises them on legal strategy.

 

How about the last time he read the Federal Rules of Evidence, which regulate the use of evidence in civil and criminal trials, Kennedy asked. The rules are amended and republished every year.

 

“All the way through? Well, comprehensively, would have been in law school,” Petersen said.

 

Kennedy kept digging.

“As a trial judge, you’re obviously going to have witnesses. Can you tell me what the ‘Daubert standard’ is,” the senator asked, referring to a critical and well-known rule on using expert testimony in federal court.

 

“I don’t have that readily at my disposal,” Petersen said. “But I would be happy to take a closer look at that. That is not something that I had to —”

 

Kennedy cut him off. “Do you know what a motion in limine is,” he asked. A motion in limine is a widely used request for certain evidence to be excluded at trial.

Petersen said yes, then tried to sidestep the question. He reminded the senator that his background wasn’t in litigation and said he hadn’t had time to “do a deep dive.”

 

“I understand the challenge that would be ahead of me if I were fortunate enough to become a district court judge,” Petersen said. “I understand that the path that many successful district court judges have taken has been a different one than I have taken.”

Kennedy said he was familiar with Petersen’s résumé, then asked again what a motion in limine was.

“I would probably not be able to give you a good definition right here at the table,” Petersen said.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Yup. That was one of the most painful demonstrations of a guy out of his depth that I've seen. He didn't belong there.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,520]

Yup. That was one of the most painful demonstrations of a guy out of his depth that I've seen. He didn't belong there.

 

Agreed. While I'm not necessarily against nominating someone who doesn't have a vast law background, you got have something other than "I managed other lawyers".

 

Way under qualified.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Those questions were pretty basic. Not some gotcha nonsense or anything.

 

Know what Daubert challenge is? I wouldnt trust any litigation attorney in any subject matter in any state who couldnt come up with an answer to that one.

 

Same deal with the motion in limine question. Thats as basic as it gets in litigation.

[wiffleball 4,642]

Those questions were pretty basic. Not some gotcha nonsense or anything.

 

Know what Daubert challenge is? I wouldnt trust any litigation attorney in any subject matter in any state who couldnt come up with an answer to that one.

 

Same deal with the motion in limine question. Thats as basic as it gets in litigation.

Yeah, that stuff paralegals even know.

 

But these are the same guys that chose Jeb Bush to head the energy Department who was literally and admittedly shocked to find out that they were responsible for nuclear energy security.

 

And don't even get started on Betsy DeVos.

 

Swear to Christ, these guys aren't working for the Russians? I don't know why they be doing the things they're doing. But if they are working for the Russians they deserve one hell of a Christmas bonus.

[IMMensaMind 459]

...aaaand off we go a-wifflejacking.