This Republican Keeps Humiliating Trump’s Judicial Nominees

In a viral exchange, Sen. Kennedy schooled one potential judge this week—but that wasn’t the first time he made a scene.

June 6, 2017 - Washington, District of Columbia, U.S.© Bill Clark/Congressional Quarterly/Newscom via ZUMA Press

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

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.

Earlier in the year, Kennedy embarrassed then-nominee to the 6th Circuit John K. Bush, who had previously drawn controversy for the more than 400 pseudonymous blog posts he had written over the course of nearly a decade. In a June Senate hearing, Buzzfeed reported that Kennedy had no questions for Bush; instead, he just shook his head and said: “Mr. Bush, I’ve read your blogs. I’m not impressed.” (Kennedy, though, still voted to confirm him in July.)

Kennedy’s most explicit disapproval so far seems to have been focused on two of Trump’s most controversial nominees, Brett Talley and Jeff Mateer, who both made headlines this week when the White House abandoned their nominations after Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman  Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) spoke out against them.

In a hearing at the end of November for two other nominees, David Stras and Stuart Kyle Duncan, Sen. Kennedy put on a show—in part questioning the two nominees up for confirmation and in part calling into question the validity of the broader judicial slate by explicitly referencing the questionable behaviors of Talley, Mateer, and another controversial pick.

 

“Mr. Justice, have you ever blogged anonymously or otherwise in support of the Ku Klux Klan?” Kennedy asked, referring to Talley, who appears to have defended the Ku Klux Klan in a message board post in 2011. Stras and Duncan replied that they had not. He continued, “Mr. Justice, have you ever described a child as being part of Satan’s plan?”—a nod to Mateer, who has drawn attention for making similar remarks about transgender children. They again replied that they had not. 

He wasn’t just using Duncan and Stras, though, as a foil to Mateer and Talley. Duncan is actually a nominee from Louisiana, and as such the senator from whom he needed approval in the traditional “blue slip” process—in which a nominee’s home senators are asked to return a blue slip in approval of their confirmation—was Kennedy himself. Kennedy did turn in a blue slip for Duncan, but, in an unorthodox move, marked himself as “undecided” on the sheet. 

The reason Kennedy has been a thorn in the administration’s side, at least in the case of Duncan, is not just because of these judges’ qualifications. It also seems to have something to do with a person inside the White House; in that late November hearing, Kennedy explained his reasoning for keeping approval from Duncan with a not-so-subtle challenge to White House counsel Don McGahn’s influence over the nomination process. As part of the blue slip process, home state senators are typically consulted before the president moves forward with a respective senator’s nominee. Kennedy claims that this did not happen with Duncan and was, to put it lightly, perturbed.  

“I had been through Mr. Duncan’s questionnaire very carefully…[it] seems to imply that Mr. Duncan’s name came from Senator Cassidy and me, Senator Kennedy,” Sen. Kennedy said in the hearing. “At least from my point of view, that is not accurate. I first learned about Mr. Duncan’s nomination when I received a phone call—actually a series of phone calls—from [White House counsel] Mr. Don McGahn. Mr. McGahn was very firm that Mr. Duncan would be the nominee.”

“I want to give Mr. McGahn full credit he came back later and apologized,” Kennedy continued. “But his firmness he did not relent on. So the truth is that I don’t know Mr Duncan very well. I’m looking forward today to learning more about him.”

“I say this with as much respect as I can possibly muster,” Kennedy concluded during that November hearing. “I hope that [Duncan] can demonstrate to me today that he is the second coming of Justice Holmes or Justice Scalia and not the second cousin of somebody who is politically connected in the Washington swamp.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate