The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Insane Trump judicial appointment shocks legal profession

Trump has just appointed a man called Brett Talley to become a federal district judge (this is quite a senior position in the American legal system). It is a solemn and important role; for example, the last federal judge to be appointed by Obama, Brian Martinotti, prior to that appointment had been a judge in the Superior Court of New Jersey for fourteen years.

The Obama appointment before Martinotti, Robert Rossiter Jr, was a very accomplished lawyer who had been in practice for 33 years, and was a senior fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. I think you get the picture; this is an important job, and you appoint lawyers with experience. It is also a lifetime appointment to the bench so one tends to appoint people who are in their fifties or sixties.

This new Trump appointment, Turley, is 35 years old. He has never argued a case in court; not once has he represented a client, argued a motion, cross-examined a witness. He practiced law for three years, but more recently he has been a blogger and been a political appointee in various state governments.

The American Bar Association is scathing of this appointment, calling him "completely unqualified". Why on earth would Trump appoint such a person? There is no shortage of well-qualified, conservative lawyers and state judges. But I guess the difference is Turley is an extremist and uber-partisan. These are the sorts of people Trump wants in the American judicial system.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/11/senate-panel-votes-to-make-pro-gun-blogger-a-federal-judge.html

Naturally Trump supporters will defend this, because they are completely blinded by partisanship and prejudice. They don't care about looking at the substance of matters. If Trump does it, they support it, even if it's completely against values they purported to hold as recently as a few months ago.
(edited 6 years ago)
You have a gift for spin, OP, but you would have more credibility if you presented a fuller picture of the facts.

Most importantly, the nominee hasn't actually been confirmed yet, according to your own article:

Now, Talley’s nomination will proceed to the Senate floor, where he is widely expected to be confirmed on a party-line vote, just like Trump’s previous judicial nominees...

Of course, if Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, or John McCain wanted to take a substantive stand against president Trump’s defiance of norms — one that wouldn’t require them to compromise their conservative ideals — this would be a great opportunity


Now:

Original post by AlexanderHam
But I guess the difference is Turley is an extremist and uber-partisan. These are the sorts of people Trump wants in the American judicial system.


Obviously this is a particularly egregious case but my impression at least is that the American judiciary was inappropriately politicised and partisan already, to the extent that you yourself suggest that he ought to have chosen another 'well qualified conservative lawyer'. Of course if you elect an unstable and flippant man to the presidency you are going to get off-the-wall political nominations, but the 'political' part of that problem was surely happening already.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by TimmonaPortella

Obviously this is a particularly egregious case but my impression at least is that the American judiciary was inappropriately politicised and partisan already, to the extent that you yourself suggest that he ought to have chosen another 'well qualified conservative lawyer'. Of course if you elect an unstable and flippant man to the presidency you are going to get off-the-wall political nominations, but the 'political' part of that problem was surely happening already.


Of course, I 100% accept your point. The American judiciary is inappropriately politicised, particularly as outside of the federal judiciary many (even most) judges are elected. If you're a county judge in Alabama and a capital crime comes before you, when you're passing sentence you're going to be thinking, "If I give him life without parole rather than death, how will that affect my re-election prospects next year?"

I accept that the "politicised" bit really isn't the problem so much as his total lack of qualification for this position. The fact he's an uber-partisan is relevant in some respects, because there is a difference between being a partisan and being political; can you imagine Antonin Scalia chanting "Lock her up"?

But, I think we are both on the same page that ultimately the issue is lack of qualification. I mean, I have appeared in court representing clients more than this guy has. That's bonkers
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by TimmonaPortella
You have a gift for spin, OP, but you would have more credibility if you presented a fuller picture of the facts.

Most importantly, the nominee hasn't actually been confirmed yet, according to your own article

Just on the nomination issue, he's passed the Judiciary Committee vote and the full senate rarely votes against a committee vote approving a nominee.

Both Trump and US GOP senators should be ashamed of themselves. It's like they're not even pretending to care anymore.
What do you expect?

https://splinternews.com/watch-trumps-nominee-for-a-key-environmental-post-try-a-1820281384

I am surprised none of them asked her "how ****ing stupid are you really"?
Ah who cares, this is Britain we have better judges here. America can go do one
Original post by yudothis
What do you expect?


Of course, I don't expect anything better from Trump. He is a dumpster fire of a president; easily the worst the US has ever had in terms of his ignorance, his lack of self control, etc.

I am disgusted that the GOP judiciary committee allowed the nomination to sail through. I mean, I've appeared in court more times than this guy. It's utterly bizarre, it's like they're not even pretending to care about the public good or maintain some facade of objectivity anymore.

https://splinternews.com/watch-trumps-nominee-for-a-key-environmental-post-try-a-1820281384

I am surprised none of them asked her "how ****ing stupid are you really"?


Her response might be like when Trump said, "I'm really, like, a smart person"
Original post by MartinF98
Ah who cares, this is Britain we have better judges here.

We do indeed. England & Wales has the best legal system in the world; the quality of our jurisprudence, the objectivity of our judges, the almost total absence of corruption in the court system... we have a magnificent legal system, truly.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about Trump's actions in America. America is our close ally. It's the dominant nation of the Anglosphere. It's the sole superpower. What happens in America affects the rest of the world.
Original post by AlexanderHam
We do indeed. England & Wales has the best legal system in the world; the quality of our jurisprudence, the objectivity of our judges, the almost total absence of corruption in the court system... we have a magnificent legal system, truly.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about Trump's actions in America. America is our close ally. It's the dominant nation of the Anglosphere. It's the sole superpower. What happens in America affects the rest of the world.


It's not really. China is growing at an incredible pace and is rapidly expanding its influence on other Asian countries as well as having stronger economic ties with western countries like the UK, the US is no longer the 'sole' superpower. If anything, it has diminished over the past few years following the financial crisis
Original post by MartinF98
It's not really. China is growing at an incredible pace and is rapidly expanding its influence on other Asian countries


There's no doubt that China is growing apace, but to claim it is a superpower is asinine.

The reason the US is a superpower is because it has global reach in a way no other country has. The US Navy has ten carrier battle groups. It has 50,000 troops stationed in Europe, another 30,000 in Japan and 20,000 in South Korea. The United States is the only country that can truly project power far from its own region.

China barely has a blue water navy. In military terms it is little more than a regional power, and one that is very much contained and constrained by US allies like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia. And because of China's activities in the South China Sea (island-building and seizure), it has completely alienated Vietnam and the Phillippines, pushing them into America's orbit. If anything Chinese influence has declined in the last five years due to their alienation of their regional neighbours.

The US is also a superpower in economic, cultural and educational terms. Of the top 10 universities in the world, eight out of ten are in the US (and the other two are Oxford and Cambridge, so all ten are in the Anglosphere). There is no country that has the cultural influence that the US does, in terms of exporting film and television, music, etc. Do you think China has that sort of cultural clout? :lol:

In all these fields, economic, military, cultural, educational, scientific, the United States is the world leader and China doesn't even come close to matching it.

the US is no longer the 'sole' superpower


The US is a superpower. There is no doubt about that. There is no other country that meets that definition. China does not. So my point stands (and is correct); the US is the sole superpower.

About ten years ago it was fashionable to talk about how China was going to overtake the US by 2020, how the BRIC nations were rising. That never really panned out. China has enormous structural, economic problems. It has a serious demographic problem with an aging population and it's very possible that China will not overtake the US in nominal GDP any time this century. China's growth is slowing down, their population is aging. They cannot deal with the aging issue without opening the floodgates to massive population growth.

And as I mentioned above, China doesn't even come close to the US in terms of global influence in fields like science, culture, education. None of the innovative, market-making companies of the 21st century are Chinese; they're companies like Google and Apple. Just as it was in the 20th century, the US is making the 21st century and leading the way. China has a lot of catching up to do (and a lot of reform and change) before it can be considered a superpower, before it will have global influence that is in the same league as the US
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by AlexanderHam
Of course, I 100% accept your point. The American judiciary is inappropriately politicised, particularly as outside of the federal judiciary many (even most) judges are elected. If you're a county judge in Alabama and a capital crime comes before you, when you're passing sentence you're going to be thinking, "If I give him life without parole rather than death, how will that affect my re-election prospects next year?"



Except if you are a county judge in Alabama, that isn't your call. Capital sentencing decisions are made by juries not judges.
Original post by nulli tertius
Except if you are a county judge in Alabama, that isn't your call. Capital sentencing decisions are made by juries not judges.


If we're being technical, there is no such thing as a "county judge" in the Alabamese legal system, and if there was they wouldn't hear capital cases.

Furthermore, in Alabama judges can overrule a jury's decision to give life without parole, and opt to impose capital punishment. Afaik it's the only state in the union where that is the case.
Original post by AlexanderHam
Of course, I 100% accept your point. The American judiciary is inappropriately politicised, particularly as outside of the federal judiciary many (even most) judges are elected. If you're a county judge in Alabama and a capital crime comes before you, when you're passing sentence you're going to be thinking, "If I give him life without parole rather than death, how will that affect my re-election prospects next year?"

I accept that the "politicised" bit really isn't the problem so much as his total lack of qualification for this position. The fact he's an uber-partisan is relevant in some respects, because there is a difference between being a partisan and being political; can you imagine Antonin Scalia chanting "Lock her up"?

But, I think we are both on the same page that ultimately the issue is lack of qualification. I mean, I have appeared in court representing clients more than this guy has. That's bonkers


Yes the idea of electing judges is clearly mad. Also my impression from some years of occasionally consuming various kinds of American news media (so I'm not claiming any real expertise) is that as a nation they talk about law, and particularly litigation, quite a bit, and basically talk about it wrongly. They seem to have a tendency to talk about courts reaching the right or wrong decisions in cases without much reference at all to any law that applies. I think Americans basically think of judges as simply exercising a political discretion when they decide cases. Of course this would be of little consequence if the selection and appointment of judges weren't political to the point that, as you say, often judges are chosen directly by the public.

I take the point but I think maybe what you're talking about is more just a decline in the decorum and restraint thought to be required of different kinds of office holders, which is obviously a wider theme of the Trump administration.

Totally unqualified, yes. No doubt about that. Reflects poorly on everyone involved in the process.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Yes the idea of electing judges is clearly mad. Also my impression from some years of occasionally consuming various kinds of American news media (so I'm not claiming any real expertise) is that as a nation they talk about law, and particularly litigation, quite a bit, and basically talk about it wrongly. They seem to have a tendency to talk about courts reaching the right or wrong decisions in cases without much reference at all to any law that applies. I think Americans basically think of judges as simply exercising a political discretion when they decide cases. Of course this would be of little consequence if the selection and appointment of judges weren't political to the point that, as you say, often judges are chosen directly by the public.

Most definitely. The cable news commentators automatically assume that the judges have decided the case based on political ideology. Having said that, they're often right. You can almost always predict how Justice Kagan or Justice Thomas or Notorious RBG will vote.

It's almost as though in America, you have two parallel lines of legal precedent; the liberal one, and the conservative one. In England & Wales, we have a single line of precedent and thought that is followed by judges; sometimes it is overruled and the law changes, but it's a single body of legal thought.

In America, it's almost like you have these parallel lines of legal thought and the question of which line of legal thought will decide the case and thus become law of the land depends on whether liberals or conservatives have a 5-4 in the Supremes.

Having said that, it is often only the really fundamental cases like abortion, gun rights, etc where you see this politicisation. There are plenty of cases which attract little attention, where Kagan and Thomas will vote the same way, like deciding on a narrow point of contract law as to (for example.. I don't know if this was actually a recent SC case) whether promissory estoppel can act as a cause of action.

But that still doesn't alter the fact that cable news believes that all cases are decided on political grounds and that this is how a justice system should work

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you