Trump judicial nominee withdraws his name after incredibly embarrassing video goes viral.

MUST WATCH: Republican @SenJohnKennedy asks one of @realDonaldTrump’s US District Judge nominees basic questions of law & he can’t answer a single one. Hoo-boy. pic.twitter.com/fphQx2o1rc

— Sheldon Whitehouse (@SenWhitehouse) December 15, 2017

Damn! I have seen that numerous times now but it still makes me cringe.

Well I am not the only one to cringe, and now this Mathew Person guy is taking his ball and going home.

Courtesy of HuffPo:  

President Donald Trump’s judicial nominee Matthew Petersen has withdrawn his name from consideration after a video went viral of him failing to answer basic questions about law in his confirmation hearing. 

“It happened,” an aide to a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee told HuffPost on Monday. 

The White House later confirmed the news. “Mr. Petersen has withdrawn his nomination and the President has accepted,” a White House official told HuffPost. 

In his letter to the president, Petersen said he’s withdrawing because he doesn’t want to be “a distraction” to the administration. 

“I had hoped that my nearly two decades of public service might carry more weight than my two worst minutes on television,” he said. “However, I am no stranger to political realities, and I do not wish to be a continued distraction from the important work of your Administration and the Senate.”

Yeah, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out Spanky.

Let's face the facts Donald Trump's appointees are among the least qualified folks to have EVER been nominated for a judicial, cabinet, or government position.

Personally I think they should all be rejected just as a basic rule of thumb.

Hey remember that Sarah Palin judge show? Yeah, that's not going to happen.

Courtesy of Radar Online: 

RadarOnline.com has exclusively learned that Sarah Palin’s hopes for a reality courtroom show have been dashed. 

“The show has been killed,” a syndication TV source told Radar. 

The former Alaska governor and vice-presidential nominee, 52, reportedly inked a deal last winter with Warm Springs, a production company based in Montana.

Still, “Though Sarah has obvious talent as a commentator, she didn’t resonate with the audience as a judge,” noted the source of Palin, whose stint with FOX News also recently came to an end.

"Didn't resonate with the audience." What, couldn't they find an audience of nose picking farm animal molesters to sit still that long?

Well it's a good thing that Radar Online picked his up because it fell off of my radar a long time ago.

I knew from the very beginning that this was a non-starter.

After all the woman is an idiot.

I would think that Honey Boo Boo has a better shot at sitting behind a bench and handing down legal decisions than Sarah "Are my kids being arrested again?" Palin.

I don't know what is in Palin's immediate future, and I don't think she does either, but we can all rest assured she will fail at it whatever it turns out to be. 

Because that is what she does, fail.

The NRA takes a victory lap for electing Donald Trump.

Courtesy of Salon: 

After spending $30 million in ads to prop up Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, the NRA is now planning to get a return on its investment. 

“This is our historic moment to go on offense,” explained NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre told members in a post-election video address. 

LaPierre also vowed that he would work to reverse the “tyrannical erosion of gun rights” and denounced states with tight gun control laws as having “deceitful web of gun bans, ammo bans, magazine bans, exorbitant fees, and taxes and registration schemes.”

LaPierre wants to convince the NRA members that they are responsible for the election of Donald Trump.

But of course we know that they would have been rendered impotent without the help of Russian hackers, fake news stories on Facebook, and the FBI's James Comey putting his thumb on the scale.

Funny how some people puff out their chest when their participation in a victory was negligible at best.

Must be why they need to carry guns in order to feel like a man.

John Oliver on the fact that having judges run for office puts justice up for sale.

Courtesy of Raw Story:

“Look, if we are going to keep electing judges, we may have to alter our idea of what justice is, ” Oliver concluded.”In fact, at the very least to be a bit more representative, we should tweak the blindfolded lady holding scales, to put a tip jar in her hand and a give her a f*cking winking emoji for a face.” 

With Colbert gone, and Stewart with one foot out of the door, John Oliver has now risen to the top of my list of not to be missed political satirists.

This, this is why we need to always vote Democrat.

Courtesy of the New York Times:

Democrats have reversed the partisan imbalance on the federal appeals courts that long favored conservatives, a little-noticed shift with far-reaching consequences for the law and President Obama’s legacy. 

For the first time in more than a decade, judges appointed by Democratic presidents considerably outnumber judges appointed by Republican presidents. The Democrats’ advantage has only grown since late last year when they stripped Republicans of their ability to filibuster the president’s nominees. 

Democratic appointees who hear cases full time now hold a majority of seats on nine of the 13 United States Courts of Appeals. When Mr. Obama took office, only one of those courts had more full-time judges nominated by a Democrat. 

The shift, one of the most significant but unheralded accomplishments of the Obama era, is likely to have ramifications for how the courts decide the legality of some of the president’s most controversial actions on health care, immigration and clean air. Since today’s Congress has been a graveyard for legislative accomplishment, these judicial confirmations are likely to be among its most enduring acts.

Yes, this is how we protect our country and our civil liberties from the conservatives who have tried to knock us back to the judicial stone age.

Just imagine if Hillary wins two terms. Justice Kennedy is 78, as is Scalia.

Ginsberg is 81 and Breyer 76.

The others are somewhat younger, but you never know what can happen with a person's health.

And besides even if Hillary only manages to replace Scalia on the conservative side of the bench, and the not always reliable Kennedy she will have made an incredible impact on this country for decades to come.

And of course that does not take into consideration all of the federal judges that will, and have been, appointed during the Obama and Clinton administrations.

Just look how many Obama has appointed already.

Yes this is where the real political impact is felt, and of course the conservatives are well aware of that fact. So expect this next election cycle to make the previous look like a trip to Disneyland. 

Iowa Senate candidates suggest that possessing a "Biblical worldview" should be the litmus test for choosing federal judges.

Courtesy of UPI: 

In a debate held by right-wing organization The Family Leader last Friday, four Iowa (Senate candidates) revealed their litmus test for federal judge contenders. 

"As long as they have a biblical worldview," said Republican candidate Matt Whitaker, "then they'll be a good judge. And if they have a secular worldview -- I'm going to be very concerned about how they judge." 

Erik Erickson, editor-in-chief of restate.com, a conservative political blog, moderated the forum. 

When Erickson asked candidates what they look for in potential nominees, Whitaker replied, "What I'd like to see are their worldview, what informs them, how do they live their lives, are they people of faith?" 

Three out of the four hopefuls vowed to block appointees who didn’t share their views, citing a “biblical view of justice” as the chief criteria for the appointment of federal judges. 

Does anybody else remember when an understanding of the Constitution and a respect for the law were the most important prerequisites for being appointed a judge in this country?

Of course Sarah Palin's favorite Iowa Senate hopeful was right there flogging the Bible with the rest of them:

Joni Ernst, who is currently a state senator, agreed, adding that federal judges should understand that the Constitution and all of our laws “did come from God” and that senators should “make sure that any decisions that they have made in the past are decisions that fit within that criteria.”

Perhaps they were all confused as to the difference between a United States Senator and Baptist minister.

Why the Religious Right is excited about 2014, and YOU should be encouraging everybody you know to get out and vote.

Courtesy of Salon:  

Last week, the Senate voted 52-48 to eliminate the ability of the minority party in the Senate to filibuster executive branch nominees and any judgeship below the Supreme Court by changing the requirements for passage to a simple majority vote. It was a historic move made because there was no other alternative, given the GOP’s unprecedented abuse of the filibuster. In the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered. Half occurred under all presidents from Washington through to Bush. Remarkably, the other half has taken place under just one president: Obama. 

Why such aggressive judicial obstructionism by the GOP? 

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. writes, “This era’s conservatives will use any means at their disposal to win control of the courts. Their goal is to do all they can to limit Congress’s ability to enact social reforms.” 

The Christian Right, which is the GOP’s most reliable and agitated voting bloc, is obsessed with the courts, and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit is the nation’s second most important judicial body, which is why Republicans “gave the game away when all but a few of them opposed Obama’s three most recent appointments.” 

Now that Democrats were forced into limiting the filibuster, the Christian Right has its incentive to mobilize for 2014. A simple majority control of the Senate gives it an opportunity to pack the courts with judges straight out of the Justice Scalia mold, who once said that separation of church and state would come under scrutiny under a Supreme Court with a Scalia majority. If the Christian Right sweeps Republicans to control the Senate in next year’s midterms, the anti-secularists will take a big step forward toward their stated ideological goals.

So is it possible that the Right Wing lured Harry Reid and the Democrats into a trap?

Well if they did it is only a trap that works if the progressives turn out in the low numbers that are traditional for us in non-Presidential election cycles. 

They are essentially counting on the fact that due to the Edward Snowden revelations, the Healthcare.gov glitches, and the usual mid-term election malaise that we will be uninspired, unmotivated, and uninterested in going to the polls.

Well I say screw them! I think we WILL turn out in big numbers and fight to hold onto what we have, and even push to gain more.

We know we can do it, the demographic numbers are on our side, the energy is on our side, and the ideas are on our side, so let's get fired up, and ready to go!

Schaeffer Cox takes the stand in the hopes of demonstrating to the court that he is essentially harmless. I think he may have demonstrated something else entirely.

As I mentioned on Monday, Schaeffer Cox is now serving as his own co-counsel and has, in his infinite legal wisdom, decided to put his best character witness on the stand. Himself.

Now there is probably no sweeter sound in the word to Francis "Schaeffer" Cox than the sound of his own voice (They do not call him "the preacher" for nothing.), and you can see that for yourself by visiting You Tube and watching video after video of the domestic terrorist wannabe demonstrating a seemingly affable, if perhaps kooky, personality, while openly discussing "standing up to the Federal government."

Cox clearly has a great deal of confidence in his persuasive capabilities. (After all didn't he talk this rag tag group of idiots to help him plan to kidnap and kill law enforcement in Alaska?)

So having sat in relative silence for a week, Cox was anxious to explain away all of this silly nonsense about him being a dangerous person in front of the courtroom. I don't think it went the way the thinks it went.

This from Alaska Dispatch:

On Tuesday Cox blamed everybody but himself for his predicament, in which he faces a possible life sentence if convicted of the most serious charges. 

He told the court he believed he was the target of twin murder plots. He thought a man now known to be a government informant would kill him if Cox didn't instigate violent conflict. And he believed that federal agents had sent an out-of-state hit squad to Alaska to murder his family, a government plot to end Cox's outspoken ways. He believed government feared his rising influence and would go to any lengths to stop him. (In fact there was NO plot to murder Cox.  A fact that should be obvious to all except those suffering severe anti-government paranoia. Which indeed MOST 2nd Amendment quoting sovereign citizens types suffer from.)

Schaeffer Cox with his fellow Alaska Peacekeepers militia members.

He'd had a brush with the Office of Children's Services, brought about by a domestic violence incident he had with his wife. As a result of the case, the child welfare agency was required to make sure Cox's young son was safe in the home. Cox believed it was a ruse to get him to use force to prevent anyone from taking his child, thus sparking the conflict federal agents needed as an excuse to kill him. Cox took steps to protect himself. He wore body armor. He carried a gun. He traveled with an armed security detail at the ready. He didn't want a shootout, but he was ready for the fight if he found himself in the middle of one. (The Office of Children's Services employees do NOT carry weapons and are certainly not going to engage a parent in a shootout, especially since their focus is protecting the safety of a young child. I cannot imagine the jurors not being horrified to hear Cox's response to their concern for his son's well being.)

"There were U.S. Marshals that were trying to corner me and my wife into a shootout to fix the 'Schaeffer Cox problem,' and using my son to do it," he told jurors, explaining that the scenario was his "greatest fear."  (And the theme continues.)

But Cox was also facing, he said, life and death pressure to instigate the very violence he claimed an aversion to. Bill Fulton, a weapons dealer from Anchorage, who was later found out to be one of the government's paid informants, pushed Cox hard to lash out at the government in retaliation for any effort by state officials to go after his toddler-aged son, Cox said. 

In one breath, Cox boasted and bragged about his gun-toting force of militia members. In another, he espoused the ethics of non-violence. He wanted, he claimed, to be more like Ghandi than Rambo. But with Fulton in his face, a Ghandi-like approach could prove his undoing. 

"I was instilled with a very real fear that if I kept trying to pull a Ghandi, Bill Fulton would kill me, blame it on the feds and try to start a war," Cox said on the stand Tuesday. (I have a feeling that Cox compares himself to Ghandi simply because that is the most peaceful character he can conjure up, with apparently no understanding of Ghandi's absolute insistence on non-violent responses to aggression.)

Cox often speaks in extremes, something he's done when addressing judges and state troopers alike. He told a state court judge people would rather kill her in her bed at night than quibble with her in court, and he once told a state trooper he could have law enforcement "outmanned and outgunned." 

These were threats, investigators and prosecutors suggest. Cox answers that they were merely a "communication technique," a tactic of saying something shocking to get people off balance and "pull them out of their comfort zone and into a new frame of thought." After making a statement about his available force, or some impending conflict, Cox generally follows up with a line about how he doesn't want that to happen, about how it's preventable if both sides work toward peace. (So in the mind of Schaeffer Cox threatening judges and law enforcement with a violent response or murder is simply his way of opening a dialogue?)

There's more but I think you probably get the drift.

I have to imagine that THIS is why Schaeffer's legal team kept him off of the stand.  They had to have realized that he was suffering from severe paranoia and that having him on the stand would certainly NOT convince a jury that he was harmless, but would in fact have quite the opposite affect.

I think this testimony has probably had a chilling effect on the jury, and would not at all be surprised that they want to make sure this guy stays caged up for as long as possible.

The interesting thing is that Cox's entire defense was predicated on the idea that the plans to kidnap judges and engage law enforcement in a firefight were REALLY coming from the FBI informants, even claiming that he was "held hostage in Alaska" and was unable to leave because one the the informants would not provide transportation out of the state, and that HE was the one trying to calm everybody down and take the path of a peaceful outcome (You know, like Ghandi.)

That is a hard case to make once you admit to wearing bulletproof vests while visiting with OCS employees and having armed security accompany you everywhere, and then suggesting that you made violent threats against law enforcement in order to "pull them put of their comfort zone."

Well I have to imagine that hearing this kind of testimony has pulled the jury out of their comfort zone as well, and that Cox is possibly looking at a very uncomfortable couple of decades of his own.

And the truly troubling aspect of all of this is that lunatics with a very similar mindset to Schaeffer Cox are now in charge of the Republican party in Alaska. I worry that our troubles may just now be starting here in the Last Frontier.

CNN legal analyst: "Some of these Republican judges are just deranged by hatred of the president."

Courtesy of Politico:

 After accusing a federal appellate court panel of throwing a “hissy fit” about President Barack Obama, outspoken CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said Thursday that the order requiring the president to explain his beliefs about judicial review was a “disgrace” and he called some Republican judges “deranged by their hatred for the president.” 

“I think what these judges have done is a disgrace,” Toobin said on CNN. “What President Obama said was entirely appropriate. There is nothing wrong, there’s nothing controversial.” 

“He said, ‘I signed a law that was passed by the democratically elected congress and I think it’s constitutional.’ And then these judges give the Justice Department a homework assignment, a three-page letter, single spaced, explaining what the president said,” he said. 

The order from 5th Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith, a Ronald Reagan-appointee, seemed to be a direct shot at Obama’s much-debated comments on Monday in which he said that the Supreme Court would be guilty of an “unprecedented” act of “judicial activism” if it strikes down the health care reform law. 

What the appellate court’s request boils down to, Toobin argued Thursday, is that some GOP judges are simply out to get Obama for partisan reasons and that the president is in no position to “threaten” the Supreme Court, as many of his critics have suggested.  

“That was a perfectly appropriate comment by the president and it just shows how some of these Republican judges are just deranged by hatred of the president,” he said. 

He added: “The president has no leverage over the Supreme Court. He can’t threaten. What’s he going to threaten to do? …’If you rule this way, I’m not going to invite you to a State dinner’?” 

Good for Jeffrey Toobin!

Personally I think we have been witnessing the politicization of the judiciary for decades. In the past judges may have been appointed by either a Republican, or Democratic, President, but they usually put respect for the law well before their ideological considerations.

I think we can all agree that those days are past. Which has been made all the more obvious since the election of Barack Obama.

However what is happening today, as it concerns this president, seems to be coming from a darker place. And in my opinion a racist place.

Republicans in general, and Republican judges included, seem to be completely unable to demonstrate any respect for President Obama.  It is as if they are simply incapable of seeing him as their President.

And it cannot be attributed to his liberal policies, since he is by NO means the most liberal president we have had in the last 50 years. 

Nor can it be his  refusal to work across party lines, since as WE all know that he has done everything but offer to cut the crust off their sandwiches in order to get the Republicans to meet him part way in order deal with the problems facing this country.

No what they are reacting to is something MUCH more primitive.

And it seems that it has even filtered up to the Supreme Court, some of whose members may in fact be getting their framework for how to interpret the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act from Fox News.

I have to say that I am suffering from irony overload by the fact that the GOP is CONSTANTLY bitching about "activist judges," while pointing in the direction of the Left, when in fact the MOST activist judges this country has ever seen are products of a Right Wing ideology.

Or is THAT something we simple minded Americans are not supposed to be noticing?