The recent embarrassing hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding Trump judicial nominee Matthew Peterson revealed that Peterson did not possess even rudimentary knowledge of relevant judicial or legal procedure and that he had no experience whatsoever that would qualify him to be a federal judge with a lifetime appointment.
Who was responsible for vetting this nominee? How could anyone with the slightest bit of sense have ever thought for a moment that Peterson was qualified? Nominating this man shows a great deal of disrespect for the law and the judicial system.
Two other nominees have withdrawn from consideration after embarrassing facts were learned about them. One of these men, Brett Talley of Alabama, also had very little experience and an American Bar Association Committee had said unanimously that he was not qualified. The other man, Jeff Mateer of Texas, had made controversial speeches involving various social issues and condemned same-sex marriage as a forerunner of polygamy and bestiality.
One of the judges who will be confirmed is Don Willett of Texas. He was appointed by Rick Perry to the Texas Supreme Court. However, prior to that appointment, he had virtually no relevant experience that would qualify him to be a Justice on Texas’ highest court.
There is an enormous difference between what politicians believe are judicial qualifications and what practicing lawyers and sitting judges believe are judicial qualifications. I have no business saying who should get a plumber’s license or an electrician’s license because I’m not qualified by education, training and experience to make those judgments. Why do politicians think they are qualified to evaluate judicial nominees?
Maybe Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, said it best: “Just because you’ve seen “My Cousin Vinny” doesn’t qualify you to be a federal judge.”
Photo Credit: Rudy & Peter Skitterians