any of our fellow trumpets care to defend this nomination ?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-federal-judge-nominee-asked-legal-questions-not-answer-district-washington-dc-a8111826.html

He can always pull a Ben Carson and say he doesn't need to know anything about the law, just know how to order around those that do. That was Carson's defense back in October when someone brought up that he wasn't qualified to be in charge of HUD. (not knowing anything about HUD)

This post was edited by Arsenic_Touch on Dec 15 2017 09:44am

im sure we'll get a buzzword laden justification about liberal circuit judges and swamp draining at some point from one of those idiots.

at this point someone could make a janitor with an IQ of 40 the president of a major university and the alt right would justify it by saying that liberal indoctrination has gone so deep that its a good thing.

I said it the 2nd GOP debate, Trump is good at identifying problems and convincing people they're worse than they are. its a great way to mobilize support, and it makes for diehard fanboys. once you've convinced them that things like illegal immigration are top priority and can be fixed by a wall that will come free its hard to maintain credibility to the mainstream. things like unqualified judges worry me more than unqualified cabinet members tho.



the be fair carson knew he couldnt use the "i lived in public housing" justification for long

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 15 2017 09:41am

vouch.

cabinet members have a competent staff to fall back on. an incompetent judge does not.

and if im being pessimistic this judge is being put in place to make partisan judgements. this will result in some missing out on justice and many appealing to a higher court. it will cost the taxpayer money for results that wont change all that much in the end. its just an expensive check/balance for cheap optic wins.

reminds me of those obama judges who keep shitting on trumps travel ban even though the supreme court has made it crystal clear that they will affirm it once the cases end up there.

i dont like court cases that wont change the end result from either party, but my curiosity is tingled. what source showed the SCOTUS would shoot down the appeal before it was on their desk?

No not doesn't. More death panel mumbo jumbo.

tbh once they took out all religious tests and made it largely a regional ban it was a shoe in to pass. it wont affect much with respect to islamic terrorism, it was expensive to litigate, it will cost something to implement, it will piss off a lot of people in the region, and it will be removed in the next dem swing just like Trump is running through anything that has Obama's name on it. but it was a shoe in to go on the books, fighting it was pretty pointless once its was modified. fighting to get it modified was good work tho.

Obamas fatal flaw was micromanaging generals and firing generals for using standard military procedure.

Obama ordered military officers to avoid attacking mosques and civilians, which is how you lose a war. This is a simple black and white distinction but youre deluded by your hatred here.