4 added 10 characters in body
source | link

This is about the nomination of Brett Joseph Talley to the position of District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

According to this article in the Los Angeles Times, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved his nomination November 9th (i.e. yesterday).

The same article though found multiple notable points about this appointment and make the claims that this nominee

has never tried a case, was unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn.’s judicial rating committee, has practiced law for only three years and, as a blogger last year, displayed a degree of partisanship unusual for a judicial nominee, denouncing “Hillary Rotten Clinton” and pledging support for the National Rifle Assn.

Personally I am a bit surprised that he would be approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, considering the article claim of him being unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn.’s judicial rating committee.

HoweverOn another hand, I am not sure what the Bar Assn. committee decision fully entails. I take that it does not refer to the Bar Exam, considering that this individual has actually practiced law (albeit so far only for 3 years).

Anyway the question is, being that he has already been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee (and given that he is probably approved by the current President) can his nomination be considered to be practically set in stone?

What processes or laws, if any, could be brought up against a candidate in this kind of situation?

This is about the nomination of Brett Joseph Talley to the position of District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

According to this article in the Los Angeles Times, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved his nomination November 9th (i.e. yesterday).

The same article though found multiple notable points about this appointment and make the claims that this nominee

has never tried a case, was unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn.’s judicial rating committee, has practiced law for only three years and, as a blogger last year, displayed a degree of partisanship unusual for a judicial nominee, denouncing “Hillary Rotten Clinton” and pledging support for the National Rifle Assn.

Personally I am a bit surprised that he would be approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee considering the article claim of him being unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn.’s judicial rating committee.

However I am not sure what the Bar Assn. committee decision fully entails. I take that it does not refer to the Bar Exam, considering that this individual has actually practiced law (albeit so far only for 3 years).

Anyway the question is, being that he has already been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee (and given that he is probably approved by the current President) can his nomination be considered to be practically set in stone?

What processes or laws, if any, could be brought up against a candidate in this kind of situation?

This is about the nomination of Brett Joseph Talley to the position of District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

According to this article in the Los Angeles Times, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved his nomination November 9th (i.e. yesterday).

The same article though found multiple notable points about this appointment and make the claims that this nominee

has never tried a case, was unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn.’s judicial rating committee, has practiced law for only three years and, as a blogger last year, displayed a degree of partisanship unusual for a judicial nominee, denouncing “Hillary Rotten Clinton” and pledging support for the National Rifle Assn.

Personally I am a bit surprised that he would be approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, considering the article claim of him being unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn.’s judicial rating committee.

On another hand, I am not sure what the Bar Assn. committee decision fully entails. I take that it does not refer to the Bar Exam, considering that this individual has actually practiced law (albeit so far only for 3 years).

Anyway the question is, being that he has already been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee (and given that he is probably approved by the current President) can his nomination be considered to be practically set in stone?

What processes or laws, if any, could be brought up against a candidate in this kind of situation?

3 added 140 characters in body
source | link

This is about the nomination of Brett Joseph Talley to the position of District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

According to this article in the Los Angeles Times, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved his nomination November 9th (i.e. yesterday).

The same article though found multiple notable points about this appointment and make the claims that this nominee

has never tried a case, was unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn.’s judicial rating committee, has practiced law for only three years and, as a blogger last year, displayed a degree of partisanship unusual for a judicial nominee, denouncing “Hillary Rotten Clinton” and pledging support for the National Rifle Assn.

Personally I am a bit surprised that he would be surprised about whatapproved by the Senate Judiciary Committee considering the article claim of him being unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn.’s judicial rating committee.

However I am not sure what the Bar Assn. committee decision fully entails (I. I take that it does not refer to the Bar Exam, considering that this individual has actually practiced law albeit(albeit so far only for 3 years).

Anyway the question is, being that he has already been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, does that mean that (alsoand given that he is probably approved by the current President) can his nomination isbe considered to be practically set in stone?

What processes or laws, if any, could be brought up against a candidate in this kind of situation?

This is about the nomination of Brett Joseph Talley to the position of District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

According to this article in the Los Angeles Times, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved his nomination November 9th (i.e. yesterday).

The same article though found multiple notable points about this appointment and make the claims that this nominee

has never tried a case, was unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn.’s judicial rating committee, has practiced law for only three years and, as a blogger last year, displayed a degree of partisanship unusual for a judicial nominee, denouncing “Hillary Rotten Clinton” and pledging support for the National Rifle Assn.

Personally I would be surprised about what being unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn.’s judicial rating committee entails (I take that it does not refer to the Bar Exam considering that this individual has practiced law albeit so far only for 3 years).

Anyway the question is, being that he has already been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, does that mean that (also given that he is probably approved by the current President) his nomination is practically set in stone?

What processes or laws, if any, could be brought up against a candidate in this kind of situation?

This is about the nomination of Brett Joseph Talley to the position of District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

According to this article in the Los Angeles Times, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved his nomination November 9th (i.e. yesterday).

The same article though found multiple notable points about this appointment and make the claims that this nominee

has never tried a case, was unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn.’s judicial rating committee, has practiced law for only three years and, as a blogger last year, displayed a degree of partisanship unusual for a judicial nominee, denouncing “Hillary Rotten Clinton” and pledging support for the National Rifle Assn.

Personally I am a bit surprised that he would be approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee considering the article claim of him being unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn.’s judicial rating committee.

However I am not sure what the Bar Assn. committee decision fully entails. I take that it does not refer to the Bar Exam, considering that this individual has actually practiced law (albeit so far only for 3 years).

Anyway the question is, being that he has already been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee (and given that he is probably approved by the current President) can his nomination be considered to be practically set in stone?

What processes or laws, if any, could be brought up against a candidate in this kind of situation?

2 added a couple tags
| link
1
source | link