Brett J. Talley, President Trump’s nominee to be a federal judge in Alabama, 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.

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee, on a party-line vote, approved him for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.

Talley, 36, is part of what Trump has called the "untold story" of his success in filling the courts with young conservatives.

“The judge story is an untold story. Nobody wants to talk about it,” Trump said last month, standing alongside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in the White House Rose Garden.

“But when you think of it, Mitch and I were saying, that has consequences 40 years out, depending on the age of the judge — but 40 years out.”

Civil rights groups and liberal advocates see the matter differently. They denounced Thursday’s vote, calling it “laughable” that none of the committee Republicans objected to confirming a lawyer with as little experience as Talley to preside over federal trials.

"He's practiced law for less than three years and never argued a motion, let alone brought a case. This is the least amount of experience I've seen in a judicial nominee," said Kristine Lucius, executive vice president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

The group was one of several on the left that urged the Judiciary Committee to reject Talley because of his lack of qualifications and because of doubts over whether he had the "temperament and ability to approach cases with the fairness and open-mindedness necessary to serve as a federal judge."

Some conservatives discount the ABA's rating. "The ABA is a liberal interest group. They have a long history of giving lower ratings to Republican nominees," said Carrie Severino, counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network, which supports Trump's nominees. She said past liberal nominees have been rated as qualified even if they had little or no courtroom experience.

Talley does have some other qualifications, some traditional, others less so. He grew up in Alabama and earned degrees from the University of Alabama and Harvard Law School. He clerked for two federal judges and worked as a speech writer on the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. And, like many people who eventually became federal judges, he became the protege of someone who became a senator.

In Talley’s case, the mentor was Republican Sen. Luther Strange, the former Alabama state attorney general who was appointed to the Senate in January to replace Jeff Sessions, who left the Senate to become U.S. attorney general. Talley worked for Strange as a deputy.

Typically, senators play the lead role in recommending nominees for the federal district judgeships in their state. Talley also had something of an inside track. This year, when Sessions moved to the attorney general's post, Talley took a job in the Justice Department's office that selects judicial nominees.

Trump and McConnell have succeeded in pushing judicial nominees through the Senate because the Republicans have voted in lockstep since taking control of the chamber in 2014.

When Trump took office in January, there were more than 100 vacant seats on the federal courts, thanks to an unprecedented slowdown engineered by McConnell during the final two years of President Obama’s term. The Senate under GOP control approved only 22 judges in that two-year period, the lowest total since 1951-52 in the last year of President Truman’s term. By contrast, the Senate under Democratic control approved 68 judges in the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency.

The best known vacancy was on the Supreme Court. After Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, McConnell refused to permit a hearing for Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee. Trump filled the seat earlier this year with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

The Alliance for Justice, which tracks judicial nominees, said Trump’s team is off to a fast start, particularly when compared with Obama’s first year. By November 2009, Obama had made 27 judicial nominations, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Trump has nominated 59 people to the federal courts, including Justice Gorsuch. That’s also a contrast with Trump’s pace in filling executive branch jobs, where he has lagged far behind the pace of previous administrations.
Liberal advocates are dismayed that Republicans have voted in unison on Trump's judges.

"So far, no one from his party has been willing to stand up against him on the agenda of packing the courts," said Marge Baker, vice president of People for the American Way.

Last month, when the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on several other nominations, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked Talley about his fervent advocacy of gun rights. In a blog post titled a "Call to Arms," he wrote that "the President and his democratic allies in Congress are about to launch the greatest attack on our constitutional freedoms in our lifetime," referring to Obama's proposal for background checks and limits on rapid-fire weapons following the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

"The object of that war is to make guns illegal, in all forms," Talley wrote. The NRA "stands for all of us now, and I pray that in the coming battle for our rights, they will be victorious," he added.

A month later, he reprinted a "thoughtful response" from a reader who wrote: "We will have to resort to arms when our other rights — of speech, press, assembly, representative government — fail to yield the desired results." To that, he wrote: "I agree completely with this."

When pressed, he told the senators he was "trying to generate discussion. I wanted people to be able to use my blog to discuss issues, to come together and find common ground."

In a follow-up written question, Feinstein asked him how many times he had appeared in a federal district court.

"To my recollection, during my time as Alabama's deputy solicitor general, I participated as part of the legal team in one hearing in federal district court in the Middle District of Alabama," he replied.

On Thursday, the Judiciary Committee approved White House lawyer Greg Katsas on a 11-9 vote to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and then approved Talley on another 11-9 vote. The nominations now move to the Senate floor, where a similar party-line result is expected.

Link

As John Kennedy said in response to criticism of appointing brother Bobby, who had never tried a case, to be Attorney General, “I can’t see that it’s wrong to give him a little legal experience before he goes out to practice law.”

Zero fucks. He's as likely to be decent as some senile crackpot on the bench their entire lives.

quote:

denouncing “Hillary Rotten Clinton” and pledging support for the National Rifle Assn.

He had my vote right there.

I think this means that he's untainted and problem not yet corrupted

I see this as a good thing

perhaps he will be one of the few who understands the concept of 'justice' and not 'just us'

Weren’t some Supreme Court Justices equally as lacking in experience as this guy?

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Zero fucks. He's as likely to be decent as some senile crackpot on the bench their entire lives.

How do you know?

So bizarre, and sketchy, no matter his ideological leanings.

Congress is one thing, any asshole can do that job when armed with a staff to help.

But a federal judgeship?

Eek.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
Weren’t some Supreme Court Justices equally as lacking in experience as this guy?

Appellate judging is different than trial court judging, and Supreme Court judging is different than both. Almost all nominated to the Federal bench at any level have been lawyers for more than 3 years, although not necessarily engaged in court work, appearing in court, arguing. Clerking for two Federal judges is some fairly intense experience at least.

Talley is now Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

The youngest district court so far was 39 years old upon taking the bench.

Maybe Talley isn’t as dumb as he looks.

quote:

Talley earned his Bachelor of Arts in philosophy and history summa cum laude, from the University of Alabama, where he was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa, and his Juris Doctor magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he served as an articles editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

Earlier in his career, he served as an associate in the Washington, D.C., office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, as law clerk to Judge Joel F. Dubina on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and as a law clerk to Judge L. Scott Coogler of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Before joining the Department of Justice, he served for two years as the Deputy Solicitor General in the Alabama Attorney General's Office. Prior to joining the Alabama Attorney General's Office, Talley served as a speechwriter for Senator Rob Portman and as a senior writer for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign.[2]

Talley has published three horror novels/novellas and two "true ghost stories"; in 2011, Talley's Lovecraftian horror novel That Which Should Not Be was a finalist for the Bram Stoker Award.[3]

Wikipedia

"So far, no one from his party has been willing to stand up against him on the agenda of packing the courts," said Marge Baker, vice president of People for the American Way.

Heh, heh. Suck it up, Marge. We won, you lost.

In 2009 obama made Elena Kagan Solicitor General when she had never argued any case before any court.

She had been Dean of Harvard Law School.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan

"The focus of her tenure was on improving student satisfaction. Efforts included constructing new facilities and reforming the first-year curriculum as well as aesthetic changes and creature comforts, such as free morning coffee."

According to Kevin Washburn, then-dean of the University of New Mexico School of Law, Kagan transformed Harvard Law School from a harsh environment for students to one that was much more student-centric

Are people forgetting how inexperienced Obama was prior to being elected POTUS ? And he won a NOBEL prize for doing nothing .

quote:

Originally posted by selogic:
Are people forgetting how inexperienced Obama was prior to being elected POTUS ? And he won a NOBEL prize for doing nothing .

True, but he was limited to a maximum of two terms and had to run and be reelected for the second. This is for a lifetime appointment.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
In 2009 obama made Elena Kagan Solicitor General when she had never argued any case before any court.

She had been Dean of Harvard Law School.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan

"The focus of her tenure was on improving student satisfaction. Efforts included constructing new facilities and reforming the first-year curriculum as well as aesthetic changes and creature comforts, such as free morning coffee."

According to Kevin Washburn, then-dean of the University of New Mexico School of Law, Kagan transformed Harvard Law School from a harsh environment for students to one that was much more student-centric

Double standards by the communists...again.

Wow. I would never send someone for surgery to a doctor who had never operated.

So what's the problem again?

quote:

Originally posted by TAllen01:
Wow. I would never send someone for surgery to a doctor who had never operated.

Yeah, cause that's the same thing alright.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
So what's the problem again?

quote:

Originally posted by TAllen01:
Wow. I would never send someone for surgery to a doctor who had never operated.

Yeah, cause that's the same thing alright.

Why not? Let me put it to you in legal terms. I am a partner at a large firm (this is true). You have a dispute that is a bet-the-business lawsuit; if you lose, you go bankrupt. I say to you, yes, I know you want a partner like me (or two) who has tried many cases, is good with a jury, and has had great success, but instead, I am going to assign a new associate to try your case. Yes, she has never argued a case, or been in front a jury, or written a motion, or written jury instructions, or given a closing arugment, but she's fresh and new. She might do just fine . You still choose her, all else being equal?

So sure, it is the same thing. Doctor: Yes, I have opened 1,000 chests, and performed your heart surgery successfully every single time, but I have new doctor here too that has never had operated on a live human being. You have your choice: you are going to choose the new guy? This is a serious question.

I know when I have had surgery, I have wanted someone who has been down that path before.

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Zero fucks. He's as likely to be decent as some senile crackpot on the bench their entire lives.

How do you know?

Plenty of examples out there, although I'm sure the legal professionals will scream the sky is falling.

quote:

Originally posted by TAllen01:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
So what's the problem again?

quote:

Originally posted by TAllen01:
Wow. I would never send someone for surgery to a doctor who had never operated.

Yeah, cause that's the same thing alright.

Why not? Let me put it to you in legal terms. I am a partner at a large firm (this is true). You have a dispute that is a bet-the-business lawsuit; if you lose, you go bankrupt. I say to you, yes, I know you want a partner like me (or two) who has tried many cases, is good with a jury, and has had great success, but instead, I am going to assign a new associate to try your case. Yes, she has never argued a case, or been in front a jury, or written a motion, or written jury instructions, or given a closing arugment, but she's fresh and new. She might do just fine . You still choose her, all else being equal?

So sure, it is the same thing. Doctor: Yes, I have opened 1,000 chests, and performed your heart surgery successfully every single time, but I have new doctor here too that has never had operated on a live human being. You have your choice: you are going to choose the new guy? This is a serious question.

I know when I have had surgery, I have wanted someone who has been down that path before.

I still don't see how this relates to surgery.

And aside from that, the nomination is for a Judge, who will not be a participant in presenting cases to a jury.

Decisions are made based largely on prior cases, and the constitution.

I'm good with the nomination.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by TAllen01:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
So what's the problem again?

quote:

Originally posted by TAllen01:
Wow. I would never send someone for surgery to a doctor who had never operated.

Yeah, cause that's the same thing alright.

Why not? Let me put it to you in legal terms. I am a partner at a large firm (this is true). You have a dispute that is a bet-the-business lawsuit; if you lose, you go bankrupt. I say to you, yes, I know you want a partner like me (or two) who has tried many cases, is good with a jury, and has had great success, but instead, I am going to assign a new associate to try your case. Yes, she has never argued a case, or been in front a jury, or written a motion, or written jury instructions, or given a closing arugment, but she's fresh and new. She might do just fine . You still choose her, all else being equal?

So sure, it is the same thing. Doctor: Yes, I have opened 1,000 chests, and performed your heart surgery successfully every single time, but I have new doctor here too that has never had operated on a live human being. You have your choice: you are going to choose the new guy? This is a serious question.

I know when I have had surgery, I have wanted someone who has been down that path before.

I still don't see how this relates to surgery.

And aside from that, the nomination is for a Judge, who will not be a participant in presenting cases to a jury.

Decisions are made based largely on prior cases, and the constitution.

I'm good with the nomination.

And that's fine. That's what good about this site--we can disagree on side issues and still have a lot in common.

I'm not sure why people don't get the analogy. Experience is a good thing. In this case (deciding cases) having actually been in court in a good thing.