Utopia Talk / Politics / Trumpicantards Rejoice!

FoxNEWS Member	Thu Dec 05 04:42:51 Ah yes, as the Russian Puppet treasonous President continues to screw over the Republic, another unqualified Federal Judge has been confirmed by Trumpicantards. "Pitlyk is also the latest of Trump’s nominees to receive a “not qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, which has long reviewed the competence of nominees for the federal bench. In a Sept. 24 letter to lawmakers, William Hubbard, chair of the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, wrote that Pitlyk’s “experience to date has a very substantial gap, namely the absence of any trial or even real litigation experience." “Ms. Pitlyk has never tried a case as lead or co-counsel, whether civil or criminal,” Hubbard wrote. “She has never examined a witness. Though Ms. Pitlyk has argued one case in a court of appeals, she has not taken a deposition. She has not argued any motion in a state or federal trial court. She has never picked a jury. She has never participated at any stage of a criminal matter.” http://www...med/ar-BBXMdgn?ocid=spartanntp Now, we all know how some Trumpicantards are, including the resident ones that experience matters. Because it really matters in a the private sector. How on earth did Hunter Biden get that position, he clearly was unqualified for it, having no experience whatsoever in energy/gas/oil, it is inconceivable! Though, perfectly normal for Trumpicantards to think that Pitlyk with no experience to be a Federal Judge is a perfect fit. Trumpicantards rejoice as they embrace retardation!
Rugian Member	Thu Dec 05 06:36:25 American Bar Associstion - Rating of Judicial Nominees The process has been alleged by some (including the Federalist Society) to have a liberal bias.[58][59][60] For example, the ABA gave Ronald Reagan's judicial nominees Richard Posner and Frank H. Easterbrook low "qualified/not qualified" ratings; later, the ABA gave Bill Clinton judicial nominees with similar resumes "well qualified" ratings.[61] Meanwhile, Judges Posner and Easterbrook have gone on to become the two most highly cited judges in the federal appellate judiciary.[62] In 2001, the George W. Bush administration announced that it would cease submitting names to the ABA in advance of judicial nominations.[63] The ABA continued to rate nominees, just not before the names were released publicly. During the Obama administration, the ABA was once again given advance notice of judicial nominees for rating. President Trump returned to George W. Bush’s policy of not giving the ABA advanced notice of judicial nominees.[64] Seven of George W. Bush’s nominees received a ‘not qualified’ ranking, four of Clinton’s nominees, zero of Obama’s nominees, and, through December 2018, six of Trump’s nominees were rated ‘not qualified’.[65][66] For recent U.S. Supreme Court nominees, conservative Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., conservative Justice Samuel Alito, liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, liberal Justice Elena Kagan, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, and conservative Brett Kavanaugh all received the same "well qualified" rating.[67][68][69] In 2001 a study "found that nominees confirmed to the federal appeals courts with prior judicial experience fared about the same before the bar association whether they were nominated by the first President George Bush or President Bill Clinton. But ... 'among those without prior judicial experience, the differences were stark: 65 percent of Clinton nominees received the A.B.A.’s highest rating compared to 17 percent of Bush nominees.'"[70][71] In 2012, a study was released in Political Research Quarterly showing that from 1977 to 2008 there was a distinct bias in favor of judicial candidates nominated by a Democratic president, with all other factors being equal.[70] Candidates nominated by a Democrat president were 15 percent more likely to receive a "well qualified" ranking than a similarly-qualified candidate nominated by a Republican president.[72] Supporters of the rating system argue that nominees rated 'not qualified' will not perform as well as judges, however, a 2010 study found "a review of tens of thousands of dispositions does not provide generally persuasive evidence that judges rated by the ABA as Well Qualified perform better."[73] Nominee ratings during the Trump administration The ABA judicial nominee rating process has drawn additional attention during the Trump administration. Through June 2019, six of President Trump's nominees were rated 'not qualified'. Three of those were ranked unanimously not qualified, which had only occurred twice previously since the George H.W. Bush administration.[65][74] This has added further fuel to conservative's arguments of bias in the nominee rating process.[65] Republicans claim the members of the Committee on the Federal Judiciary allow their personal liberal political leanings to influence their ratings under the category of judicial temperament.[75] Members of the committee were accused of asking inappropriate questions of a nominee regarding abortion and negatively referring to Republicans as "you people."[75][76] Senator Ted Cruz stated that the ABA is a liberal advocacy group and, as such, "should not be treated as a fair or impartial arbiter of merit."[77] Senator Ben Sasse also criticized the organization for taking liberal stances on issues then proclaiming to be neutral when evaluating judicial nominees.[78] The ABA has maintained "evaluation of these candidates does not consider the nominees' politics, their ideology or their party affiliation and has found unqualified candidates put forth by both political parties."[78] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bar_Association
FoxNEWS Member	Thu Dec 05 07:18:56 Mr. Kargen, Though it is appreciative that you took the time to respond to our thread to express your opinion. We can't help but notice your attempt about the ABA portrayal having a 'liberal' slant based upon a some histories in his history of viewing certain nominees as "unqualified." It is about the same to state that the Federal Society is completely a conservative driven organization, it is, versus the ABA, which has been a moderate organization. The only times it has been accused of being left leaning is when it, again, mention those "unqualified" were of a conservative background. There has have been many instances where those were deemed "unqualified" because they may have a liberal mindset. We understand,you as a Trumpicantard, that any revelations of impartiality when depicted may violate the "code", does not dismiss the notion that the person in question of this very thread is indeed based upon the background would be unsuitable to be a federal judge. It is ironic that you do not have a comment about the individual, but rather focus on the organization in an attempt to distract from the real issue at hand. Once again, thank you for your contribution. -FoxNEWS Staff
FoxNEWS Member	Thu Dec 05 07:23:43 Edit to make corrections in a previous post in response to Mr. Kargen. Paragraph 1 Line 4: *based upon some histories in its history of... Paragraph 2 Line 1: *...to state that the Federalist Society Paragraph 3 Line 1: …, you as a Trumpicantard…, We regret the errors. Sincerely, FoxNEWS staff
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: