If you’ve been reading for a while, you’ve seen me slam Republican after Republican for heinous behavior, especially in my Republicans on Parade Series. However, if I did not credit Republicans, on those very rare occasions that I see one doing something praiseworthy, I’d be as hypocritical as a Republican. Therefor I have no parade for Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), at least not for this.
In a hearing this week for six of President Trump’s judicial nominees, Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) simply humiliated one of the potential judges. He asked Matthew Spencer Petersen a few questions that should be basic for anyone working in law. Yet Petersen, a Republican commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and a nominee to the U.S. District Court for D.C., not to mention a graduate of the University of Virginia law school, was stuck. The key exchange—over his understanding of a motion in limine and a few other legal terms—went viral.
“Do you know what a motion in limine is?” the senator asked.
“[M]y background is not in litigation…I haven’t had to, again, do a deep dive,” Petersen said.
“Yes, I’ve read your resume,” Kennedy replied. “Just for the record, do you know what a motion in limine is?”
“I would probably not be able to give you a good definition right here at the table,” Petersen said.
This is not the first time Sen. Kennedy has publicly challenged Trump’s wave of judicial nominees, many of whom are controversial and some of whom have been deemed not qualified by the American Bar Association, but most of whom have largely received a rubber stamp of approval from Republicans as they move through the confirmation process. Kennedy in fact is the only Republican to have voted against one of Trump’s judicial nominees so far. But there are a number of other ways he’s drawn attention to some of the most questionable, headline-grabbing people that Trump has nominated to the federal bench…
Inserted from <Mother Jones>
I’m not even a lawyer, but even I know that a motion in limine is a motion, with no jury present, to exclude evidence. Almost every trial has them.
Kudos to Kennedy.
You have to give Trump credit for consistence. His judicial nominees are every bit as competent as he is.