During Senate Judiciary Committee questioning at a Capitol Hill hearing earlier this week, Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) queried a Trump US District Judge appointee on some basic points of law and was more than a little surprised to learn that the presidential pick to be a member of the US District Court for the District of Columbia could not answer a single law-related question.
Not one. Zero.
Nonetheless, the spectacularly underqualified Trump judicial appointee sought to be granted the job, noting disingenuously that "the path that many successful district court judges have taken has been a different one than I have taken," cited by The Independent.
A path that, for instance, does not include law school?
Matthew Petersen, a Federal Election Commission employee who was nominated in September by US President Donald Trump for the important DC bench position, was subjected to a round of what should have been routine inquiries as to his experience in law, but came up so short as to leave the inquiring Senate panel practically speechless.
Peterson, one of five appointees at the hearing, did not take questions after his humiliating performance.
Trump was previously forced to withdraw another judicial nominee to the bench this week after it was noted that he, too, had very little experience with the law.
Brett Talley, nominated by Trump for a lifetime Alabama federal judgeship, was found to have only been practising law for three years and had never tried a case.
A member of a seemingly ever-expanding list of inexperienced or biased Trump appointees seeking to handle sensitive or crucial government posts, Talley has been described by the American Bar Association as ‘not qualified' and was criticised for not mentioning under oath a glaring conflict of interest: he is married to a White House lawyer.
