Whether the judge has dealt with it in a prior position or not, they are interviewing for a position where it does come into play. So, yes.
Are we really going to judge judicial nominees on whether they can explain abstention doctrines?https://twitter.com/smmarotta/status/940975774273867776 …
-
-
-
Any US code section could come into play, should they have them memorized?
-
I would never expect a nominee to have encyclopedic knowledge of the US Code, but the ability to answer questions relevant to federal jurisdiction and basic jurisprudence are way in bounds.
-
You’re suggesting that judges or attorneys nominated to the federal bench should do a refresher course or homework on federal jurisdiction, or what, not be confirmed if they flunk a quiz?
-
On basics? You bet. If a nominee demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding on federal jurisdiction before the Committee, why on earth would you want them confirmed to a lifetime appointment?
-
It’s a massive leap from the inability to state the abstention doctrine from memory, something that has never come up in my 15 years of federal practice, to a “fundamental lack of understanding of federal jurisdiction.”
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.