Even Judges Do PolSpeak

     The following is a transcript of this interview by Senator John Kennedy (R, LA) of Judge Robin Meriwether, a judicial nominee to the Court of Federal Claims:

Senator John Kennedy: Judge Meriwether you’ve been nominated to the Court of Federal Claims is that right?
Robin Meriwether: Yes Senator
SJK: How many motions have you argued in the Court of Federal Claims?
JRM: I have argued hundreds of motions involving complex civil claims in numerous courts. The Court of Federal Claims is not one of those courts.
SJK: Okay so the answer is zero?
JRM: That is correct Senator.
SJK: Okay how many cases have you tried in the Court of Federal Claims?
JRM: I have tried a civil case in the district court for the District of Columbia. Most of my cases have been resolved on motions, none of those cases have been in the Court of Federal Claims, although they involve similarly complex matters under civil laws.
SJK: So the answer is zero.
JRM: That is correct Senator.
SJK: Uh what is the…tell me the the the uh the grounds for granting a new trial in the Court of Federal Claims.
JRM: All of the trials um in the Court of Federal Claims are bench trials and the Court of Federal Claims although the…although it is not bound by the federal rules of civil procedure its rules mirror those rules when applicable so it’s my understanding that the same rules that would apply in the district court are also applied in that context but if I were presented with a motion for a new trial should I be confirmed as a judge on the Court of Federal Claims I would of course consult the rules of…of the Court of Federal Claims.
SJK: So what are the grounds for granting a new trial?
JRM: My understanding is that a a new trial you would have to comply with the applicable rules.
SJK: I know that but what are they? What are the grounds? You you you said that the rules are identical to the Court of Federal Claims and federal district court. I’m not sure that’s accurate, but just just tell me what are the grounds for…for granting a new trial in the Court of Federal Claims?
JRM: Senator that is not an issue I have had occasion to consider before despite my extensive civil experience and my familiarity not only with the federal rules of civil procedure but I’ve also reviewed the rules of the Court of Federal Claims but if I were presented…
JRM: I’m sorry go ahead.
SJK: No you go ahead you go ahead were you through?
JRM: I did not mean to speak over you.
SJK: That’s okay, you go ahead and I want you to finish your answer.
JRM: So I would if presented with that question should I be confirmed I would again consult the rules and follow the precedent.
SJK: All right, um, be sure let me be sure judge I understand your testimony can…can you tell me one single ground for granting a new trial in either a federal district court or the Court of Federal Claims as we sit here today?
JRM: Yes if you misapplied if there were gross misapplication of the law certainly a litigant would argue…
SJK: For anything else? They’re like six or seven of them. Can you tell me any others?
JRM: Trials are so infrequent in the civil context and I have although I have presided over bench trials and a jury trial I have not been presented with a motion to have a new trial so I’ve not…
SJK: Okay what’s a contract of adhesion?
JRM: A contract…excuse me Senator I’m familiar with contract law. The concept of contracts of adhesion…
SJK: Yeah you’re going to see a lot of that, that’s what federal Court of Federal Claims does. What’s a contract of adhesion?
JRM: Actually Senator the Court of Federal Claims does handle a lot of procurement cases. Those typically turn on interpretation…
SJK: But I’m going to run out of time. What’s the contract of adhesion? If you don’t know just tell me
JRM: Senator despite my extensive civil experience including dozens of cases that include contract cases I have not dealt with the question of what a contract of adhesion is but should it be presented to me I would…
SJK: Sure, you’ll look it up, okay. Do you remember a case judge called United States V. Allen?
JRM: Yes Senator.
SJK: You were reversed in that case weren’t you?
JRM: I made a pre-trial detention decision for I believe five defendants I believe that Mr. Allen was one of the defendants who…for whom the district judge disagreed.
SJK: Yes ma’am but you were reversed.
JRM: My pre-trial detention ruling I believe was…
SJK: Do you remember a case called uh United States V. Johnson?
JRM: I have had multiple…
SJK: United States V. Johnson.
JRM: Are you referring to the pre-trial detention in this case?
SJK: You had a defendant who was charged with traveling with intent to engage in illegal sexual conduct with a kid and the defendant also testified that he had quote had a sexual interest in minors and even had a sexual relationship with his daughter. You remember it now?
JRM: Yes Senator.
SJK: Okay and you were reversed in that case weren’t you?
JRM: I made a narrow decision in Johnston that he should be released for 21 days so that he could and placed on home incarceration so that he could get cancer treatment that he had been unable to.
SJK: You let him go out for 21 days is that correct?
JRM: I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization.
SJK: That’s what the district court judge said. The district court said no way am I letting this guy out on the street for 21 days.
JRM: The district court judge concluded that his life was not—was not at risk because he had had the medical appointment that he had not had when he appeared before me before the appeal so under those new facts the factual predicate for my temporary release decision no longer…
SJK: That’s not the way I read it. Judge do you remember a case called United States V. Voucher and United States V. Patel? You were reversed in those cases too for trying to let somebody go, weren’t you?
JRM: In those two cases my flight risk assessment under the Bail Reform Act I believe was reversed by the district judge.
SJK: Okay I’m out of time. Thanks Mr. Chairman for your indulgence.

     I included the link to the video so that you can verify my work. Isn’t it rather obvious that Judge Meriwether is not qualified for the position to which she’s been nominated? Do you think the Bidenites who put her forward are aware of that? If they’re not, what business do they have nominating anyone to a judgeship? If they are, why on Earth did they nominate her? The color of her skin?

     However, while she is plainly not conversant with the duties and rules of the Court of Federal Claims, it is clear that Robin Meriwether has been well tutored in PolSpeak. Unfortunately for her, Senator Kennedy was unwilling to allow her to “run out the clock.”

     This is federal “jurisprudence” in the United States today.