The Best People

“The Best People”: Trump Judicial Nominee Fails to Answer Basic Legal Questions

Grilled by Republican senators, Matthew Spencer Petersen flunked his confirmation hearing.
Image may contain John Neely Kennedy Human Person Finger and Face
By Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg.

Back in October, Donald Trump bemoaned the arduous confirmation process faced by his judicial nominees. “We have some of the most qualified people,” he told reporters, blaming Democrats for “obstruction.” “They're waiting forever on line. . . . It shouldn't happen that way. It's not right, it's not fair.” Two months later, Trump, aided by the aggressive workings of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, is approaching the record for most federal appeals court judges confirmed during a president’s first year in office; so far Trump has nominated 59 young conservative judges, and 14 have been confirmed. But one of the president’s “most qualified people” appeared to hit a roadblock on Wednesday, floundering in the face of questions from senators.

During his confirmation testimony, Matthew Spencer Petersen, a nominee for U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia who currently serves as a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, appeared ignorant of several legal motions, according to a video Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse posted to Twitter on Thursday. “MUST WATCH: Republican @SenJohnKennedy asks one of @realDonaldTrump’s US District Judge nominees basic questions of law & he can’t answer a single one,” Whitehouse tweeted. “Hoo-boy.”

X content

This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

In the clip, Senator John Kennedy asked the five nominees up for confirmation whether they’d ever tried a case to a verdict. Petersen admitted that he hadn’t, and Kennedy went on to spend the five minutes he was allotted peppering Petersen with run-of-the-mill legal questions. It quickly became clear that Petersen seemed to lack the knowledge expected of a federal judge. “As a trial judge, you’re obviously going to have witnesses. Can you tell me what the Daubert standard is?” Kennedy asked. “Senator Kennedy, I don’t have that readily at my disposal, but I would be happy to take a closer look at that. That is not something I’ve had to contend with,” Petersen replied. Kennedy then asked Petersen if he could define such terms as a motion in limine, the Younger abstention doctrine, and the Pullman abstention doctrine. Petersen, like a first-year law school student caught in the headlights, demurred, ultimately admitting he’d never argued a motion in state or federal court or taken a deposition by himself.

Petersen’s tacit admission that he’s unqualified to do the job for which he’s been tapped comes after two other Trump judicial nominees withdrew their names from consideration following Republican lawmakers’ vocal skepticism. Brett Talley, who had been in the running for a district court job in Alabama, withdrew his controversial nomination this week after Senator Chuck Grassley advised the White House “not to proceed” on his nomination; not only had Talley practiced law for just shy of three years and received a rare “not qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, but he failed to disclose a flagrant conflict of interest during his confirmation process. Grassley also recommended that the nomination of Jeff Mateer, who had called transgender children part of “Satan’s plan,” pushed conversion therapy, and linked homosexuality to bestiality, be “reconsidered.” Ultimately, both nominations were pulled.

Nor have Trump nominees in other departments been spared: on Wednesday Michael Dourson, Trump’s E.P.A. chemical safety nominee and a longtime toxicologist with ties to the chemical industry, withdrew his name from consideration after Senators Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, both Republicans, said they would not vote to confirm him. “Over the last several weeks, Senator Tillis has done his due diligence in reviewing Mr. Dourson’s body of work,” read a statement released by his office. “Senator Tillis still has serious concerns about his record and cannot support his nomination.” Thus far in Trump’s presidency, Republicans have shown an outsized willingness to confirm even his most ill-fitting nominees, as the confirmations of Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt, and Betsy DeVos can all attest. But with Trump shedding political capital in the wake of his twice-failed Alabama Senate endorsements, lawmakers’ uptick in scrutiny could be a sign that they’re finally drawing a line in the sand, albeit one that hinges on the most basic modicum of decency and know-how.