Posted on 01/25/2024 5:44:06 PM PST by Red Badger
Republican Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy stumped judicial nominee Robin M. Meriweather on Wednesday with a question about how the Court of Federal Claims works.
President Joe Biden nominated Meriweather to be a judge on the Court of Federal Claims in early January.
Kennedy first began his line of questioning by asking how many motions Meriweather has argued in the court of federal claims. Meriweather said she’s argued “hundreds of motions involving complex civil claims in numerous courts, the court of federal claims is not one of those courts.”
“Okay, so the answer is zero?” Kennedy asked.
“That is correct, senator.”
“Okay how many cases have you tried in the Court of Federal Claims?”
“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,” Meriweather explained.
“So the answer is zero?”
“That is correct, senator.”
“Tell me the grounds for granting a new trial in the Court of Federal Claims,” Kennedy then said.
“All of the trials in the Court of Federal Claims are bench trials and the Court of Federal Claims, although it is not bound by the federal rules of civil procedure, its rules mirror those rules when applicable,” Meriweather said. “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 court, of the Court of Federal Claims.”
“So what are the grounds for granting a new trial?” Kennedy again asked.
“My understanding is that a new trial, you would have to comply with the applicable rules,” Meriweather said.
“I know that, but what are they? What are the grounds, 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 tell me, what are the grounds for granting a new trial in the Court of Federal Claims?” Kennedy pressed.
“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 … with that question should I be confirmed, I would again consult the rules and follow the precedent.”
“Alright, let me be sure judge I understand your testimony: Can you tell me one single ground for granting a new trial in either a federal district court of the Court of Federal Claims as we sit here today?” Kennedy asked again.
“Yes, if you misapplied – if there were gross misapplication of the law, certainly a litigant would argue for a new trial–”
“Anything else?” Kennedy interjected. “There are like six or seven of them. Can you tell me any others?”
“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–”
“Okay, okay, what’s a contract of adhesion?” Kennedy followed up.
“Senator, I’m familiar with contract law, the concept of contracts of adhesion–”
“Yeah, you’re gonna see a lot of that, that’s what federal court of – Federal Claims does. What’s a contract of adhesion?”
“Senator, the court of federal claims does handle a lot of procurement cases, those typically turn on interpretations–”
“Yes ma’am, but I’m going to run out of time. What’s a contract of adhesion. If you don’t know, just tell me.”
“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–”
“Sure, you’ll look it up,” Kennedy interjected.
An adhesion contract is a “contract where the parties are of such disproportionate bargaining power that the party of weaker bargaining power could not have negotiated for variations in the terms of the contract. These contracts are prepared by the party with greater bargaining power for use in all similar business transactions and given to customers on a take-it-or-leave-it basis,” according to Cornell University.
Kennedy, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, previously stumped another Biden nominee, Sara E. Hill, when he asked her to describe the difference between a “stay order” and an “injunction.”
Apparently this is easy for John Kennedy to do. I thought it was a rehash of something that occurred months ago now, but I see it’s a new one.
What boxes did she check by Biden’s staff of know-nothings?
Skewered like a souvlakia!
THAT is the kind of bulldog tenacity we need much much more of !
Any first year law student should know what a contract of adhesion is.
Nonabrasive, direct, to the point and smacks them down like the old whack-a-mole game!
sighs....
More of this please.
Thank you Senator Kennedy.
Tatt
In the U.S. court system, a stay and an injunction are both legal concepts, but they serve different purposes.
1. **Stay:**
- A stay is a temporary halt or suspension of judicial proceedings or the enforcement of a court order.
- It can be issued by a court to delay a case or specific proceedings for a certain period, often to allow for other legal processes to unfold.
- For example, a court may grant a stay to postpone a trial while an appeal is pending.
2. **Injunction:**
- An injunction is a court order that requires a party to either do or refrain from doing a specific act.
- It can be temporary (preliminary injunction) or permanent (permanent injunction), depending on the circumstances.
- Injunctions are often sought to prevent irreparable harm or to maintain the status quo during legal proceedings.
- For example, a court might issue an injunction to stop someone from engaging in certain activities that are alleged to be causing harm until a final decision is reached in a case.
In summary, a stay is a temporary pause in legal proceedings, while an injunction is a court order directing a party to take or refrain from specific actions. They are tools used by the court to manage the legal process and protect the rights of the parties involved.
Credit ChatGPT
He researches his subject, he delves into everything the nominee may or may not have done in their past...and he never, ever asks a question that he does not know the answer to.
I wonder if anyone would have the good sense to nominate Kennedy as a justice to the USSC? If they did I wonder if he would take it? He runs these nominees through the wringer and shows them to be unqualified regardless of their race or persuasion.
Well she’s not qualified for the position but she checks the right boxes so she’ll sail right through confirmation.
No president is ever going to nominate anyone over 70 to the Supreme Court. Not ever.
“What boxes did she check by Biden’s staff of know-nothings?”
Apparently the most important ones, black, women, left of Stalin, average at best intelligence.
I was reading about the bell curve today.
Certain jews are at the top of the IQ ladder, then east asians then whites and at the bottom is you know who. However you know who have more fast twitch muscles which allow a quick burst of power.
Of course there are many exceptions.
Makes sense but I can dream. He would at least be entertaining for as long as he could last.
He’s a smart country lawyer, the kind they used to write great novels about.
“More Biden DEI Judicial Hires: Dumb-Evasive-Ignorant........................”
One gets the impression that this is all that gets evacuated from the bowels of our legal education establishments, no matter how green the ivy league.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.